Upload
yola-razo
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Arafol Leg Res
1/4
I. Introduction
Although its origins seem lost in obscurity, the imposition of death as punishment
for violation of law or custom, religious or secular, is an ancient practice. By the dawning
of civilization today, every man and woman is both an individual person with inherent
human rights recognized and protected by the state and as a citizen with duty to serve the
common weal and defend and preserve the society. One of the indispensable power of the
state is the power to secure society against threatened and actual evil. Pursuant to this, the
legislative arm of the government is enacts criminal laws that define and punish illegal
acts, the executive to enforce this laws and judiciary tries and sentence criminals in
accordance with this law ( People vs Echegaray 267 SCRA 682, 2007)
With this, our Bill Of Rights in article III section 19 paragraph 1 clearly states that
excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
In midst of concurring opinion of its abolition, we stand in favor of the capital
punishment of death. Furthermore, the following issues must be taken into consideration:
1. Whether or not the implementation of death penalty is constitutional; and
2. Whether its practice violates human rights.
Death penalty is granted by the constitution
Article 19 paragraph 1 of 1987 constitution reads excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted was barrowed from an act of the
British parliament of 1886, adopted by the United States and eventually came unaltered
to the Philippines through various organics acts from the instruction of U.S. President
McKinley.
By express provision of law, the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual
punishments. Thus, it is worth to ask whether the cruel and unusual punishment clause of
the Philippines constitution should be understood as banning capital punishment. In
response, the meeting of 166-Man special committee on November 16 1972 made it clear
that there was no intention to pass judgment on capital punishment as cruel and unusual.
8/3/2019 Arafol Leg Res
2/4
U.S. jurisprudence Harden vs Director of prison and local cases of People vs Limaco and
People vs Puda stressed that death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment. What is
cruel and unusual is when it involves an inhumane practice such as those comparable to
ancient times. ( People vs Limaco )
It was pointed out that the automatic review of capital punishment cases found
that article X section 5(2) pf the 1973 constitution was implicit affirmation that capital
punishment was not per se constitutional objectable. This means that punishment of death
is not cruel within the meaning of the word used in the constitution. ( Harden vs Director
of prison).
Thus, the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doest not
apply to death penalty nor it is right to say that capital p[punishment contradicts the spirit
and true intent of the constitution.
Is capital punishment granted today?
No, it is not. This is so for in the ratification of the 1987 constitution immediately
abolishes death penalty. However, this ratification on this matter is not absolute. As
Commissioner Rumolo and Monsod said, the abolition of death penalty is not absolute
for our laws are naturally arbitrary, one cannot assume to hold the wisdom of tomorrow.
The constitution grants, as amended, that Death penalty be imposed upon a compelling
reason involving heinous crimes so long as the congress provides for it.
Is death penalty constitutional?
Yes, even it is abolished by R.A. 9346, it remains constitutional subject to the
discretion of the legislative body. What remains constitutional implies the wisdom and
desire of the state and what is dictated by its wisdom only desires beneficial to the
sovereign as a whole.
Furthermore, R.A. 7659 or the death penalty law only grants its application to
cases involving heinous crimes. Such crimes considered for being grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common
standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society( R.A. 7659)
8/3/2019 Arafol Leg Res
3/4
Crimes punishable by death are only those crimes which which has resulted not
only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property 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 the latters ability to
maintain peace and order in the country ( R.A. 7659 (3) ).
Only those above cases which involve grave and heinous crimes affecting the
nation as a whole death penalty can be imposed. With this, it is reasonable enough that
R.A. 9346 which disallows capital punishment should be reconsidered and the legislative
must take its consideration that death penalty is more advantages and applicable in the
present scenario of our country .
Death penalty does not violates human rights
In People vs Mercado ( November 2000) international law was cited by the
defense as an argument against capital punishment. Article 6 (1) of the covenant on civil
and political rights enshrines the individuals right to life. In the above cases they argued
that death penalty abridges the right of a person to life and liberty.
Nevertheless, the court ruled in appose to the accused contention. Indeed, the
court submits that article 6(1) of the convention must be held, however, article 6 (2) of
the same convention explicitly recognized the capital punishment is an allowable
limitation on the right to life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed for the most
serious crime. This means international convention of human rights recognizes death
penalty as a limitation to the right to life provided it involves serious crimes such as those
heinous offenses.
Furthermore, the equal protection clause has also been used against death penalty
on the argument that it is more after used only for the poor. Such argument as the court
held has been found too sweeping to merit serous consideration. While there may be
perceived imbalances in the imposition of penalties, there are adequate safeguards in the
constitution, the law and procedural rules to ensure due process and equal protection of
the law ( People vs Echegaray )
8/3/2019 Arafol Leg Res
4/4
Conclusion
Lastly, the right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life in rhyme
with the rules and regulation of the society. We are obligated to respect one another and
duty-bound to preserve others right to live peacefully.
If we are to preserve the human society, we will have to sustain sufficient strength
of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquility and civilly may rule
comprehensively even if it takes the imposition of the punishment of death ( Atkins vs
Virginia )
Death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have
committed unforgivably execrable effects on the national effort to lift the masses from
object poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a discipline and
honesty citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to
both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would prove actual threat to
the safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be permanently
prevented from doing so. ( People vbs Cristobal )
We are not unaware for all legal procuring at heart of the issue of capital
punishment is the wistful, sentimental life and death question to which all of us, would
answer life of course , over death.
But dealing with the fundamental question of death provides a context for
struggling with even more basic question, for the grapple with the meaning of death is an
indirect way to ask the meaning of life. Otherwise put to ask what the rights of the dying
is to ask what the rights of the living ( People vs Echegaray)
In heinous cases, life is over for the murder victims; for the rape victim, life may
not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair.
Finally, as the Supreme Court held in People vs Echegaray, there can be no ifs
and buts in the face of evil, and we cannot afford to rest until we rub elbows before
grasping it by the ears and thrashing it is demission.
With this, death penalty is a must in our country.