Norbert Jhopet - Answer A

Norbert Jhopet R.
Esquillo
University of Visayas
a) With the government’s plan to re-impose death penalty in the midst of rising criminality, do you
think the government does not overstep on its treaty commitment to respect, to protect, and to
fulfill human rights, particularly the right of all persons to life?
My take as a law student in this matter is that the death penalty violates the right of all persons to
life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to life. Article 3 provides:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Also, the death penalty contravenes
another provision of the latter which is Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The death penalty has a long history in our country, 1986 during the People Power Revolution the
Philippines became the first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty under the 1987
Constitution. Article 3 Section 19 of the latter 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. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua”. However, the death penalty was
reinstated under former President Fidel Ramos under RA 7659 which constitutionality was upheld in
the Court’s 12-3 per curiam in the case of “People vs Echegaray” wherein the following rulings were
made: 1. The death penalty is not a "cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment." It is an
exercise of the state's power to "secure society against the threatened and actual evil." 2. The
offenses for which Republic Act No. 7659 provides the death penalty satisfy "the element of
heinousness" by specifying the circumstances which generally qualify a crime to be punishable by
death; 3. Republic Act No. 7659 provides both procedural and substantial safeguards to insure its
correct application. 4. The Constitution does not require that "a positive manifestation in the form
of a higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven" before the death
penalty may be prescribed. Congress is authorized under the Constitution to determine when the
elements of heinousness and compelling reasons are present, and the Court would exceed its own
authority if it questioned the exercise of such discretion. Then 2006 came under President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo suspending the death penalty again by signing RA 9346. Also, the Philippines
have ratified in Second Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty in 2007.
As stated earlier the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty stating that
the said punishment is not cruel, unjust, excessive, or unusual punishment. Additionally, the high
court went on and declare that the international covenant on civil and political rights explicitly
recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to life citing Article 6 (2) of
the Covenant explicitly recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to
life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed for the 'most serious crimes in the case of “People vs
Mercado. I beg to disagree. Although the constitutionality was upheld as provided in the latter cases
I still think that the three justices who thought otherwise have made a powerful case for why the
death penalty is unconstitutional hinges on the argument that the constitution abolished the death
penalty. They argued that this is the clear intent of the framers of our Constitution.
Admittedly I can’t think of a solid argument that capital punishment violates our right to life. As
provided earlier our right to life is not absolute since the international law states so and even our
constitution. Thus, I can’t cite any law domestic or international which states that the right to life is
absolute. However, I fully believe that insofar as capital punishment is the ordered taking of human
life by the organized state, it is morally wrong and violates the individual’s absolute right to life. Like
any other authors who think this way, think that men are not fully in control of their own individual
lives either originally or finally. Man’s life is not totally his and cannot be taken by him for that
reason, similarly, life does not belong to the society and it is for that reason that the State cannot,
take life. To justify the death penalty for whatever reasons is to deny men to experience life as a
process over which they do not have total control.
Another reason is that our country ratified and became a State party to the Second Optional
Protocol. States who are party to the treaty have a legal obligation to abolish the death penalty
within their borders, even in the event of future changes in national legislation. Reintroduction of
the death penalty is not allowed for any reason unless a reservation allowing execution "in time of
war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during
wartime" was made at the time of ratification which is not the case for the Philippines. Under the
principle of “pacta sunt servanda” such treaty is binding to the Philippines. The international trend
now is the abolition of the said capital punishment as research shows that as of 2020 only 56
countries retain the death penalty as a means of punishment.

Norbert Jhopet - Answer A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norbert Jhopet - Answer A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norbert Jhopet - Answer A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norbert Jhopet R.

You might also like