Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay Essay Example

Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay Paper 1987. But six yearsafter it has reimposed the decease punishment. the Philippines has overtaken its Asiatic neighbours and hasthe most figure of decease inmates. Within less than a twelvemonth. nevertheless. the military constitution was buttonholing for its reimposition as ameans to battle the â€Å"intensifying† offenses of the CPP/NPA guerillas. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos. thenChief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and subsequently elected President of the Philippines in 1992. was among those who were strongly naming for the reintroduction of the decease punishment againstrebellion. slaying and drug trafficking. In mid 1987. a measure to reinstate the decease punishment was submitted to Congress. We will write a custom essay sample on Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Military force per unit area wasvery much evident in the preamble which cited the pestering insurgence every bit good asthe recommendations of the constabulary and the military as obliging grounds for the reimposition ofthe decease punishment. The measure cited recent right flying putsch efforts as an illustration of the alarmingdeterioration of peace and order and argued for the decease punishment both as an effectual deterrentagainst flagitious offenses and as a affair of simple retaliatory justness. When Ramos was elected as President in 1992. he declared that the reimposition of the deathpenalty would be one of his precedences. Political discourtesies such as rebellion were dropped from thebill. However. the list of offenses was expanded to include economic discourtesies such as smuggling andbribery. In December 1993. RA 7659 reconstructing the decease punishment was signed into jurisprudence. The jurisprudence makersargued the deteriorating offense state of affairs was a compeling ground for its reimposition. The mainreason given was that the decease punishment is a hindrance to offense. In 1996. RA 8177 was approved. qualifying deadly injection as the method of executing. Six old ages after Last February 5. 1999. Leo Echegaray. a house painter. was executed for repeatedly ravishing hisstepdaughter. He was the first inmate to be executed since the re-imposition of decease punishment in1995. His executing sparked one time once more a het argument between the anti and the pro-death penaltyforces in the Philippines with a immense bulk of people naming for the executing of Echegaray. Thatthere was a strong blare for the infliction of the decease punishment should be viewed from the pointof position of a citizen who is urgently seeking ways to halt criminalism. The Estrada disposal peddled the decease punishment as the counterpoison to offense. The concluding wasthat if the felons will be afraid to perpetrate offenses if they see that the authorities is determinedto put to death them. Oppositors maintained that the decease punishment is non a hindrance and that therehave been surveies already exposing the disincentive theory. Legislators and politicians refused toheed the rec ommendation of the Supreme Court for Congress to reexamine the decease punishment siting onthe popularity of the pro-death punishment sentiment Six old ages after its reimposition. more than 1. 200 persons have been sentenced to decease andseven inmates have been executed through deadly injection. Yet today. there are no marks thatcriminality has gone down. From February 6. 1999. a twenty-four hours after Leo Echegaray was executed. to May 31 1999 two leadingnewspapers reported a sum of 163 offenses which could be punishable by decease punishment. But perhapsthe best index that this jurisprudence is non a hindrance to criminalism is the ever-increasing figure ofdeath inmates. From 1994 to 1995 the figure of individuals on decease row increased from 12 to 104. From 1995 to1996 it increased to 182. In 1997 the entire decease inmates was at 520 and in 1998 the inmates indeath row was at 781. As of November 1999 there are a sum of 956 decease inmates at the NationalBilibid Prisons and at the Correctional Institute for Women. As of December 31. 1999. based on the statistics compiled by the Episcopal Commission on PrisonerWelfare of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. there were a sum of 936 convictsinterned at the National Bilibid Prisons and another 23 detained at the Correctional Institute forWomen. Of these figures. six are bush leagues and 12 are aliens. One of the grounds as to why human rights groups oppose the decease punishment is because of theweaknesses and imperfectnesss of the Philippine justness system. This is really much evident in thereview of decease punishment instances made by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999. Two out of everythree decease sentences handed down by the local tribunals were found to be erroneous by the SupremeCourt. Out of the 959 inmates the SC reviewed 175 instances affecting 200 inmates from 1995 to 1999 ; 3cases were reviewed in 1995. 8 in 1996. 8 in 1997. 38 in 1998. 118 in 1999. Of these 175 instances. the SC affirmed with conclusiveness and first avowal merely 31 % or 54 casesinvolving 60 inmates. Of these instances 24 were affirmed with conclusiveness. while the staying 36 weregiven first avowal. Sixty nine per centum ( 69 % ) or 121 instances were either modified. acquitted or remanded for retrial. Eighty four ( 84 ) instances affecting 95 inmates were modified to reclusion perpetua. 10 insta nces involving11 inmates were modified to indeterminate punishment. 11 instances affecting 11 inmates were remanded tolower tribunal for retrial and 16 instances affecting 23 inmates were acquitted by the SC. . In a survey prepared by the Free Legal Assistance Group ( FLAG ) . it pointed out that the consequence ofthe reappraisal of instances done by the Supreme Court â€Å"point all excessively clearly to the imperfectnesss. failings and jobs of the Philippine justness system† . Some determinations of the test tribunals wereoverturned for enforcing decease punishment on discourtesies which were non capable to decease punishment. Otherdecisions of the lower tribunals were set aside because of substantial and procedural mistakes duringarraignment and test. Still others were struck down because the lower tribunal mis-appreciatedevidences. In a study conducted among 425 inmates in 1998. 105 or 24. 7 % were agricultural workers. 103were building workers. 73 were transport workers. and 42 were in workers in gross revenues andservices. Merely 6 % finished college while 32. 4 % finished assorted degrees of high school while theremaining did non travel to school or hold finished merely simpl e or vocational instruction It is possibly of import to indicate out that out of these 46 offenses punishable by decease. the deathpenalty has been applied to merely 17 offenses. No 1 has been convicted of qualified graft. qualifiedpiracy and loot. Interestingly besides. no public functionary has been sentenced to decease for crimesinvolving public functionaries. Yet. the authorities maintains that it is effectual in battling offense. Under the decease penaltylaw. 46 offenses are considered flagitious and are now capable to the decease punishment. It imposes themandatory decease punishment on 21 offenses while the other 25 offenses are decease eligible. These arecrimes for which a scope of punishments including the decease punishment is imposed. Some Congressmans and Senators are suggesting other lists of offenses to add to the above. Some evencontemplated take downing the age of those punishable by the decease punishment to include youthfuloffenders. The decease punishment is an easy manner out for a authorities in the face of a strong call from thecitizenry who wanted the authorities to halt criminalism. It is being used to make the semblance thatthe author ities is making something to halt the offenses when in fact it is non. Sad though it possibly. more lives would be lost unless the decease punishment in the Philippines is repealed. SANTOS A. LABANPHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATESAquino disposal 1987 Harmonizing to the 1987 Constitution. Art. III ( Bill of Rights ) . Sec. 19. ( 1 ) Excessive mulcts shall non be imposed. nor barbarous. degrading or cold penalty inflicted. Neither shall decease punishment be imposed. unless. for obliging grounds affecting flagitious offenses. theCongress afterlife provides for it. Any decease punishment already imposed shall be reduced toreclusion perpetua. In mid-1987. a measure to seeking to reinstate the decease punishment for 15 ‘heinous crimes’ includingmurder. rebellion and the import or sale of forbidden drugs was submitted in Congress. 1988 In 1988. the armed forces started buttonholing for the infliction of the decease punishment. Then Armed Forcesof the Philippines Chief General Fidel Ramos was outstanding among those naming for thereintroduction of the decease punishment for rebellion. slaying and drug-trafficking. The militarycampaign for the Restoration of the capital penalty was chiefly against the CPP-NPA. whoseoffensives so included urban blackwash runs. Anti-death punishment groups including Amnesty International opposed the measure. but the House ofRepresentatives voted for Restoration by 130 ballots to 25. 1989 Three similar measures were put before the Senate. After a bloody 1989 putsch. President Aquinocertified as pressing one of these measures on the suggestion of Ramos. The said measure once more proposed deathpenalty for rebellion. every bit good as for sedition. corruption and rebellion. 1990 The Senate suspended the ballot on decease punishment for a twelvemonth1991 The Senate did non hold to travel to a determination. Ramos disposal A series of high profile offenses during this period. including the slaying of Eileen Sarmenta andAllan Gomez. created public feeling that flagitious offenses were on the rise. The Ramosadministration succeeded in reconstructing decease punishment. 1992 President Fidel Ramos during his first State of the Nation reference declared that hisadministration would see the Restoration of the decease punishment a legislative precedence. and urgedCongress to take rapid action. 1993 Ramos signed into Republic Act 7659. the new decease punishment jurisprudence. on December 13. 1993. 1994Republic Act 7659 took consequence on January 1. 1994.1996 Republic Act No. 8177. which mandates that a decease sentence shall be carried out through lethalinjection. was approved on March 20. 1996. Estrada disposal Seven decease inmates were executed during the Estrada disposal before he announced amoratorium on executings. 1999 Leo Echegaray. 38. was executed by deadly injection on February 5. 1999. He was the first to beexecuted after the Philippines restored decease punishment. It was the Philippine’s first executing in 22 old ages. Six more work forces followed within the following 11 months. 2000 On March 24. 2000. Estrada imposed a de facto moratorium in observation of the Christian JubileeYear. He besides granted 108 Executive Clemencies to decease inmates. On December 10. 2000. Human Rights Day. Estrada announced that he would transpose sentences ofall decease inmates to life imprisonment. He expressed his desire to attest as pressing a measure seeking arepeal of the Death Penalty Law. Arroyo disposal Please see Gloria Arroyo on decease penalty–a timelineWhile the Arroyo disposal has been characterized by a flip-flopping base on decease punishment. no decease inmate has been executed under her ticker. Voting individually. the two Houses of Congress on June 6. 2006 repealed the decease punishment jurisprudence. Arroyo signed Republic Act 9346 on June 24. 2006. The jurisprudence prohibited the infliction of the deathpenalty. History of decease punishment inthe Philippines The history of the decease punishment was extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in People vs. Echegaray. [ 1 ] As early 1886. capital penalty had entered the Philippine legal system through theold Penal Code. which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870. The Revised Penal Code. which was enforced on 1 January 1932. provided for the decease punishment inspecified offenses under specific fortunes. Under the Revised Penal Code. decease is the penaltyfor the offenses of lese majesty. correspondence with the enemy during times of war. qualified buccaneering. parricide. slaying. infanticide. snatch. colza with homicide or with the usage of deathly weapon orby two or more individuals ensuing in insanity. robbery with homicide. and arson ensuing in decease. The list of capital discourtesies lengthened as the legislative assembly responded to the exigencies of thetimes. In 1941. Commonwealth Act ( C. A. ) No. 616 added espionage to the list. In the fiftiess. at the heightof the Huk rebellion. the authorities enacted Republic Act ( R. A. ) No. 1700. otherwise known as theAnti-Subversion Law. which carried the decease punishment for leaders of the rebellion. From 1971 to1972. more capital discourtesies were created by more Torahs. among them. t he Anti-Hijacking Law. theDangerous Drugs Act. and the Anti-Carnapping Law. During soldierly jurisprudence. Presidential Decree ( P. D. ) No. 1866 was enacted punishing with decease. among others. offenses affecting homicide committedwith an unaccredited piece. In the wake of the 1986 revolution that dismantled the Marcos government and led to thenullification of the 1973 Constitution. a new fundamental law was drafted and ratified. The1987Constitutionprovides in Article III. Section 19 ( 1 ) that: Excessive mulcts shall non be imposed. nor barbarous. degrading or cold penalty inflicted. Neithershall decease punishment be imposed. unless. for obliging grounds affecting flagitious offenses. the Congresshereafter provides for it. Any decease punishment already imposed shall be reduced to reclusionperpetua. Congress passed Republic Act No. 7659 ( entitled â€Å"An Act to Enforce the Death Punishment on CertainHeinous Crimes. Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code. as Amended. Other SpecialPenal Laws. and for Other Purposes† ) . which took consequence on 31 December 1993. Constitutional challengeThis is extensively discussed in the instance of Peoples vs. Echegaray. ( For redacting ) Abolition of decease penaltyOn 24 June 2006. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into jurisprudence Republic Act No. 9346. entitled â€Å"An Act Forbiding the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines† Effectiveness of the new jurisprudence Section 5 of R. A. No. 9346 specifically provides that it shall take consequence instantly after itspublication in two national newspapers of general circulation. This is pursuant to Article 2 oftheCivil Codewhich provides that Torahs shall take consequence after 15 yearss following the completion oftheir publication either in the Official Gazette. or in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines. unless it is otherwise provided. R. A. No. 9346 was published in Malaya and Manila Times. two national newspapers of generalcirculation on 29 June 2006. Consequently. R. A. No. 9346 took consequence on 30 June 2006. [ 2 ] Exemplifying instances As a consequence of the abolishment of the decease punishment. bing punishments for decease were reducedtoreclusion perpetua. within the possibility ofparole. Here are exemplifying instances: The instance of Peoples of the Philippines vs. Quiachon [ 3 ] involves an accused who raped his 8-year olddaughter. a deaf-and-dumb. Under Article 266-B of theRevised Penal Code. the imposable penaltyshould have been decease. With the abolishment of the Death Penalty. nevertheless. the punishment was reducedtoreclusion perpetua. without the possibility of parole under theIndeterminate Sentence Law. The instance of Peoples of the Philippines vs. Santos [ 4 ] involves therapeof a 5-year old kid. Theaccused was meted the punishment of decease because colza committed against a  ¶child below seven ( 7 ) old ages old · is a dastardly and abhorrent offense which merits no less than the infliction of capitalpunishment under Article 266-B of theRevised Penal Code. The sentence was besides reducedtoreclusion perpetua. without the possibility ofparole. The instance of Peoples vs. Salome [ 5 ]involves arapeof a 13-year old miss ( who got pregnant ) . committedin a home and with the assistance of a bladed arm. The imposable punishment should hold been decease. but with the abolishment of the Death Penalty. theSupreme Courtreduced the punishment toreclusion perpetua. without the possibility ofparole. The instance of Peoples of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua [ 6 ]involves the slaying of a victim whosuffered 18 pang lesions which were all directed to her thorax. bosom and lungs. Sing theexistence of the measure uping circumstance of apparent forethought and the aggravatingcircumstances of brooding. and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigatingcircumstance. the proper imposable punishment would hold been decease. However. with the abolishment ofthe decease punishment jurisprudence. the punishment imposed wasreclusion perpetua. without the possibility ofparole