LIBRT Death Penalty Be Restored in the Philippines

Affirmative Side
By: Jeremiah N. Caballero

In the long history of the Philippines, the death penalty was known and accepted fact.
The Code of Kalantiao, the oldest recorded body of laws of our early ancestors showed the
strictness under the barangay that existed and based their moral acceptance of right and
wrong, that even the code of Kalantiao imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is
considered as heinous crime.

On another related perspective, according to the Classical Theory, on which our Revised
Penal Code is based, it regards crime as the product of human free will, and the purpose of
penalty as retribution. Man is held accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains
unimpaired. For penal purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself,
and a direct proportion is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the
offense. Hence, it supports death penalty for heinous crimes.

To our very dynamic Dean, Atty. Israelito Torreon, to our honorable adjudicators, to the
faculty members of the JMC College of Law, my beloved teammates, worthy opponents,
classmates, ladies, and gentlemen, a pleasant evening.

As the first speaker of the affirmative side, allow me to set the parameters of this
debate.

Death Penalty, as a capital punishment, is a government legal sanction whereby a

We, on the affirmative side, firmly believe that death penalty is a necessary, beneficial,
and practicable punishment for capital offenses or heinous crimes only. It must be the last
resort and is limited only to those offenders who can no longer be rehabilitated. Moreover, we
strongly consider lethal injection as a means to implement death penalty for humanitarian
considerations.
 Death penalty should be restored in a sense that Article III Section 19 of the
constitution provides 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 effect, Republic Act 7659
was enacted to impose death penalty on certain heinous crimes which among others are not
limited to treason, parricide, murder, rape, drugs, and plunder. However, it was repealed by
Republic Act 9346 which prohibits the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines.

Allow me introduce the speakers for the affirmative side of this debate.

I am Jeremiah Caballero, the first speaker of the team. I am going to present the
necessity of restoring death penalty in the Philippines.

Next to me is Dan Marcus Lascano, who will argue about the beneficiality of the
proposition.

Finally, we have Allan Lloyd Libre to discuss about the practicability of adopting the
same.

Let us now proceed to my main arguments.

1. The Philippines is experiencing an increasing number of crimes annually,

a. On the increasing number of crimes annually:

The report of the Philippine Statistics Authority, based on the information provided by
the Philippine National Police, Department of Justice, and Commission on Human Rights, shows
that crime rate had increased consistently from 2006 to 2014, eight years after RA 9346 was
enacted which provided for the prohibition of the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines.
According to the said report, 9,945 murder cases were recorded in 2014 compared to 6,196 in
2006. Also, 10,294 rape cases were recorded in 2014 compared to 2,589 in 2006. It basically
shows that the increase in crime rate has the effect of increasing the number of innocent
individuals and defenseless victims every year. Meaning to say, every 54 minutes, a person is
murdered, and every 51 minutes, a person is suffering from rape according to the PNP.
 Moreover, index crime rate is very high nowadays compared to the time when death
penalty was still in effect. Index crimes are those which are sufficiently significant and which
occur with sufficient regularity to be meaningful. Index crime rate is computed per 100,000
population. Included on this are the physical injury, robbery, theft, murder, and rape. According
to the Philippine Statistics Authority, index crime rate in 2004 and 2005 were only 52 and 25,
respectively. However, the rate increased to a great extent in 2013 and 2014 with crime index
rates of 466 and 493, respectively.

b. on the decreasing crime solution efficiency:

PSA report also shows that in 2004 and 2005, when death penalty was not prohibited,
crime solution efficiency was very high at 88 to 89%. However, in 2012 and 2013, crime
solution efficiency was decreasing from 36 to 28%. According to the Philippine National Police,
these rates are below the par 70%. On the other hand, in 2014, the ratio of 1 policeman for
every 1700 Filipinos is very far off from the ideal 1:500-1000 ratio according the Philippine
National Police. Meaning, the 147,190 number of policemen who are in charge of maintaining
peace and order in the society by protecting the people is not enough to cater the
approximately 102,000,000 entire Philippines population. The problem on the deficiency on the
number of policemen will be alleviated if public order and rule of law would be maintained. This
can be achieved by instilling into the minds of the public the detrimental effects of their
unlawful actions, the purpose of which is for deterrence, which will be discussed thoroughly by
the next speaker.

c. Philippines is among the least safe countries in the world:

Under the Global Peace Index, the average rank of the Philippines from 2008 to 2016 in
terms of safety, peace, and order is 130 th out of the 160 countries. The index gauges global
peace using three broad themes: the level of safety and security in society, the extent of
domestic and international conflict, and the degree of militarization. In 2014, the total number
of reported crimes is 1,161,188 according to the Philippine National Police; 258,444 of which
pertain to index crimes against persons.

Based on the data that I have presented about the increasing number of crimes,
decreasing crime solution efficiency, and the Philippines among the least safe countries in the
world, we can validly infer that despite the penalties provided by our laws and peace and order
measures implemented by the State, offenders and possible perpetrators are not obstructed
from committing crimes because their acts are not being stopped, but only being limited
through imprisonment. This now brings me to my second argument.

2. There is an alarming regularity and viciousness of crimes being committed

Let me present to you some of the many highly cruel crimes committed by offenders in
the Philippines after the prohibition of the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines.

 In 2014, the Baguio Massacre took place wherein the victims, 3 minors and a
maid, were stabbed inside a rented apartment.
 In 2009, the Maguindanao Massacre happened wherein 58 victims were
kidnapped and being killed.
 Remember the Subic Rape case in 2006? The victim Suzette was gang- raped by
4 US Marines including Lance Corporal Smith.
 In 2014, Myla Rosales, 7 years old and a Grade 1 student was raped by three
men and stabbed to death in Paco, Manila.
 This year, a 51- year old man raped and killed a 3 year old girl in Banaybanay.
 In 2007, Ruby Rose Barrameda was abducted on 2007. She was strangled, her
corpse was placed in a drum, into which concrete was poured, and it was placed
inside a rectangular steel container and cemented again.

Some of these cases are still undergoing judicial procedures while the rest have already
been decided and provided for reclusion perpetua as penalty to the perpetrators. How do we
lessen or even eliminate these cruel incidents in the society? We remove the cause – the
perpetrators. Under the restorative justice concept, the rationale of punishment is entirely to
prevent further crime by either reforming the criminal or protecting society from him and to
deter others from crime through fear of punishment. The imposition of death penalty attaches
the likelihood of future pain to outweigh the apparent gain of committing the crime by instilling
in their minds the grave consequence for their grave offense.

Another example is the becoming of New Bilibid Prison as a command center for drug
operations in the country. In the operation conducted by the government, PNP SAF, CIDG, and
PDEA were able to seize contraband items inside the high- security prison. Meaning, even if
these convicts were already in prison for the purpose of retribution and rehabilitation, it did not
stop them from perpetrating unlawful acts.
 Capital punishment is morally justified as a means of preventing the criminal from
committing additional crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown himself to be wicked
and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to murder or rape once is very likely to act in socially
harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a person from going on to murder or
rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is a far less effective means of protecting
society from such dangerous criminals. Most prisoners are freed after a time-often having
become most dangerous than when they entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of
their sentences. In any case, escape is always possible. And even within the confines of prison,
a condemned criminal may murder or rape a guard, a fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a
condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing additional acts of
crime.

Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth. What would happen to the human rights of the
victims who died and their families. Justice must be served. Without death as penalty for
heinous crimes, people will begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to
impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they deserve, there are sown the seeds of
anarchy — of self-help, of vigilante justice and lynch law. The people will take the law upon
their hands and exact vengeance in the nature of personal vendetta.

Based on the foregoing arguments, this team firmly believes that the restoration of
death penalty in necessary because (1) the Philippines is experiencing an increasing number of
heinous crimes annually, suffers from decreasing crime solution efficiency, and ranks among the
least safe countries in the world, and (2) There is an alarming regularity and viciousness of
crimes being committed nowadays.

Thank you and good evening.