case study about death penalty in philippines

Philippine e-Legal Forum

Philippine laws and legal system (pnl-law blog).

Cases after the Death of the Death Penalty Law in the Philippines

We  wrote that on 24 June 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346, entitled ‘An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines ‘. Let’s examine the Supreme Court decisions after the abolition of the Death Penalty.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Quiachon (G.R. 170236, 31 AUgust 2006) involves an accused who raped his 8-year old daughter, a deaf-mute. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should have been death. With the abolition of the Death Penalty, however, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua , without the possibility of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Santos (G.R. 172322, 8 September 2006) involves the rape of a 5-year old child. The accused was meted the penalty of death because rape committed against a ‘child below seven (7) years old’ is a dastardly and repulsive crime which merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was also reduced to reclusion perpetua , without the possibility of parole.

The case of People vs. Salome (G.R. 169077, 31 August 2006) involves a rape of a 13-year old girl (who got pregnant), committed in a dwelling and with the aid of a bladed weapon. The imposable penalty should have been death, but with the abolition of the Death Penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua , without the possibility of parole.

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua (G.R. 171271, 31 August 2006) involves the murder of a victim who suffered 18 stab wounds which were all directed to her chest, heart and lungs. Considering the existence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, and taking advantage of superior strength without any mitigating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, with the abolition of the death penalty law, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua , without the possibility of parole.

This is really the end of this article, but for the the law-inclined, we hasten to add that in Tubongbanua , the Supreme Court stated that the insertion of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or disregard of the respect due to rank, age, or sex of the victim is clearly a formal, not a substantial, amendment. These amendments do not have the effect of charging another offense different or distinct from the charge of murder as contained in the original information. They relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction. The amendment did not adversely affect any substantial right of appellant. Besides, appellant never objected to the presentation of evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of rank, age or sex. Without any objection by the defense, the defect is deemed waived.

Still in Tubongbanua , the Supreme Court cited People vs. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640). In Mateo , the Supreme Court first allowed an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeals in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed). Before, cases involving the said penalties are raised on automatic review directly to the Supreme Court.

In passing, during the deliberations among the members of the Court, there has been a marked absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein appellant. Some are convinced that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to convict; some would accept the recommendation of acquittal from the Solicitor General on the ground of inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical dilemma, i.e., the determination and appreciation of primarily factual matters, which the Supreme Court has had to face with in automatic review cases; yet, it is the Court of Appeals that has aptly been given the direct mandate to review factual issues. While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for its final disposition. Statistics would disclose that within the eleven-year period since the re-imposition of the death penalty law in 1993 until June 2004, the trial courts have imposed capital punishment in approximately 1,493, out of which 907 cases have been passed upon in review by the Court. In the Supreme Court, where these staggering numbers find their way on automatic review, the penalty has been affirmed in only 230 cases comprising but 25.36% of the total number. Significantly, in more than half or 64.61% of the cases, the judgment has been modified through an order of remand for further proceedings, by the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or by a reduction of the sentence. Indeed, the reduction by the Court of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua has been made in no less than 483 cases or 53.25% of the total number. The Court has also rendered a judgment of acquittal in sixty-five (65) cases. In sum, the cases where the judgment of death has either been modified or vacated consist of an astounding 71.77% of the total of death penalty cases directly elevated before the Court on automatic review that translates to a total of six hundred fifty-one (651) out of nine hundred seven (907) appellants saved from lethal injection.

• Recent Posts

• Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
• ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
• Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
• In Memory of the Death Penalty in the Philippines
• Primer on the President’s Power to Grant Pardon
• Posting of Bail during the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) Period

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AttyAtWork * VisitPinas * ChatTimeWithJulia RSS Entries and RSS Comments

DEATH PENALTY

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere..

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the   crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. • Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. • The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.

Execution Methods

• Beheading • Electrocution • Hanging • Lethal injection • Shooting

WHERE DO MOST EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner  – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least  883  excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still sentence to death and execute juvenile defendants. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 149 executions of child offenders in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many child offenders as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 99 child offenders since 1990.

Executions per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 657 executions in 20 countries in 2018, down by 5% from 2018 (at least 690 executions). This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in at least a decade.

Death sentences per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,307 death sentences in 56 countries in 2019, a slight decrease from the total of 2,531 reported in 2018. At least 26,604 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2019.

HOW MANY DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR?

Death sentences.

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,052 death sentences in 56 countries in 2021, an increase of 39% from the total of 1,477 reported in 2020. At least 28,670 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2021.

Amnesty International recorded at least 579 executions in 18 countries in 2021, up by 20% from 2020 (at least 483 executions). This figure represents the second lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded since at least 2010.

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen. Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 160 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime. Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems. In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory. The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool. The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty doing to abolish the death penalty?

For 40 years, Amnesty has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2019, was released in April 2020.

The organisation’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in the Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia region; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty by the UN General Assembly; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 106 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

In the Philippines

More than a decade ago, the Philippines recognized that the capital punishment is the ultimate violation of the right to life by abolishing the Republic Act 7659, later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which further emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment. Since the start of President Duterte’s term in 2016 however, he has sought to reinstate the death penalty, and almost succeeded when the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill in 2017.

Today, we call on the Philippine Senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Call on our Senators to recognize that the death penalty fails as a deterrent to any form of crime and contributes to a culture that continually devalues life.

Recorded executions skyrocket to highest figure in five years

The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful and ineffective response to drugs, death penalty myths debunked.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Death in the time of Covid-19: Efforts to restore the death penalty in the Philippines

Jose m. jose.

a Jose M. Jose Law Office, 60 Rivera Street, San Juan City, 1500, Philippines

Maria Corazon A. De Ungria

b DNA Analysis Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines

The Philippine Congress recently passed a bill amending the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and reimposing the penalty of life imprisonment to death for specific-drug related offenses. House Bill No. 7814 also allows the presumption of guilt in certain drug-related crimes unless otherwise proven, thereby overturning the long-standing constitutional presumption of innocence. The bill has been sent to the Senate for its concurrence and could only be several steps away before being signed into law by President Rodrigo R. Duterte. This paper discusses the ramifications of the new bill and the questioned timeliness of its passage when the country continues to have a large and overcrowded prison population and a significant number of deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 in Southeast Asia. The government's lapses in following the 2021 national vaccination plan became apparent in the 31 March 2021 assessment made by the congressional health panel on the government's response to the pandemic. From the authors' perspective, the urgency of using the country's limited resources to help medical frontliners and local government units prevent further infections and save lives should have outweighed the efforts exerted to pass a law that legalized the death penalty for the third time in the Philippines.

1. Introduction

In characterizing the global pandemic of 2020, the immortal words of Charles Dickens have never seemed to be more apt -, "[I]t was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of disbelief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair … " ( Dickens, 1859 ). These eloquent passages ring particularly true in the Philippines to describe the government's continuing efforts in the middle of a national health crisis to restore the death penalty as part of the drive to solve the illegal drug problem. The “war on drugs” was one of Philippine President Rodrigo R. Duterte's central campaign platforms where he committed to stop the drug trade within six months ( Corrales, 2017 ). When he took office on 1 July 2016, he emboldened the police to kill drug suspects with impunity ( Reyes, 2016 ). As of 31 December 2020, the “war on drugs” had officially claimed 6011 lives during anti-drug operations ( Marquez, 2021 ). However, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its Philippine equivalent estimate that the figure is significantly higher ( Human Rights Watch, 2021 , p. 386).

During his State of the Nation Address delivered on 27 July 2020, President Duterte renewed his call to bring back the death penalty by lethal injection for crimes specified in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The President asserted that “this law will not only help deter criminality but also save our children from the dangers posed by illegal and dangerous drugs” ( Rappler, 2020 ).

In response to the President's appeal, the House of Representatives consolidated 11 pending bills into House Bill No. 7814 ( Barbers & Garbin, 2020 ). This bill was passed on 02 March 2021, amending provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and reimposing the penalty of life imprisonment to death for specific-drug related offenses ( PTV News, 2021 ). Congress took a step further by making the prosecution of drug cases easier in court. HB7814 contained provisions that persons are presumed guilty of committing certain drug-related offenses unless otherwise proven, thereby overturning the long-standing presumption of innocence that is found in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( United Nations, 1948 ) and Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the Philippine Constitution of 1987 ( Republic of the Philippines, 1987 ). Several lawmakers strongly opposed the bill, particularly the inclusion of the ‘presumption of ‘guilt’ clauses ( CNN Philippines, 2021 ). To date, the bill has been sent to the Senate for its concurrence and could only be several steps away from being signed into law by the President, who has made the “war on drugs” a part of his political platform ( Corrales, 2017 ).

2. Violations covered by HB7814

The consolidated bill identified the drug offenses that could result in a death sentence (death-eligible crimes) and those where the court is required to impose the maximum punishment of death (death-mandatory crimes). These offenses are listed in Table 1 .

Drug Crimes covered by HB7814 ( Barbers & Garbin, 2020 ).

3. Impact of the imminent passage of HB7814 into law

Drug trafficking, drug abuse, and other drug-related offenses pose a threat to the Philippines ( Simbulan, Estacio et al., 2019 ) and the global community. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated that in 2019 at least 269 million people worldwide, or at least 5.4% of the global population aged 15–64, had used drugs at least once in the previous year ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020 ). Psychiatric studies have shown that drug addiction is a brain disease accompanied by a psychiatric disorder or other co-morbidities ( Leshner, 1997 ). In other countries, the temporary removal of drug users from the community while treating their addiction is a more effective intervention ( Kerr, Small et al., 2005 ). There is evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of drug treatment compared to the use of law enforcement-based resources to address a country's drug problem ( Caulkins & Chandler, 2006 ). Hence, the Philippines need to explore and fund diverse drug-rehabilitation approaches that are focused on addressing health issues rather than expanding law enforcement.

Interestingly, the Mega Drug Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation Center in Nueva Ecija, some 100 km north of Manila, is not fully utilized. The facility built for 10,000 addicts had reported only 2,085 severe drug addicts who completed its program in three and a half years ( Allard & Lema, 2020 ). In 2019, technical experts updated the drug policies that should guide local government units to establish treatment and rehabilitation programs for drug users ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2019 ). Because the policies are guidelines and not directives from the executive branch of government, funding to support local programs is not automatically appropriated in the national budget. Also, programs appear to be implemented mainly by religious and socio-civic organizations rather than the government's health network. The additional economic requirements for successful treatment, e.g., absence of an income during the rehabilitation period when the drug user is the wage earner, must also be addressed. One approach to incentivize drug users to complete an entire rehabilitation program is by providing alternative forms of employment for the remaining family members during the treatment period.

The authors find the underutilization of Philippine drug treatment facilities alarming, given the severely overcrowded jails and prisons. We strongly urge Congress to thoroughly review the country's approach to the drug problem, to approve a larger proportion of the national budget for health that would specifically focus on drug rehabilitation, and to support sociological research that assesses the effectiveness of local programs given the specific challenges drug users face in the Philippines. The drug problem should be seen from a public health perspective and not viewed solely as a law enforcement problem to address a policy of criminalization and punishment ( Simbulan, Estacio et al., 2019 ).

Serious doubts have been raised about the timeliness and appropriateness of the passage of HB7814 in the middle of a global pandemic where the SARS-CoV-2 virus had already infected over 953,106 Filipinos, with 127,006 active cases, and caused the death of 16,141 others, as of 20 April 2021 ( DOH, 2021 ).

Aside from the human toll, the pandemic has devastated the Philippine economy, which posted a negative growth rate of −9.5% for its Gross Domestic Product in 2020 ( Mapa, 2021 ). Around 10.9 million Filipinos lost their jobs and had lower incomes due to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Lazo & Rodriguez, 2020 ). The Philippine government debt also ballooned to P9.8 trillion at the end of December 2020, pushing the debt-to-GDP ratio to the highest level over a decade as the government borrowed more to fund the pandemic response ( Laforga, 2021 ). Moreover, it seems like poor Filipinos are being targeted by the ‘War on Drugs’ because they are the ones who use shabu or crystal meth that can shrink the brain ( Espenido, 2018 ; Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2021 ). In our opinion, these urgent and pressing problems certainly deserve more of the 'legislators' time and attention than measures intended to cause more deaths and suffering.

4. Jails and prisons in the Philippines

The current global pandemic highlighted the severe state of Philippine jails and prisons that are more crowded than other prison systems globally ( Aben, 2020 ). As of February 2021, the seven Philippine correctional institutions' average prison population occupation rate was 442%, with the women's correctional facility in Mindanao having the highest rate of 551% ( Bureau of Corrections, 2021 ). The occupancy level of Philippine prisons was 463.6% which was the second-highest level below the Republic of Congo ( World Prison Brief, 2020 ).

As a consequence of the “war on drugs” and the numerous unsolved cases of extrajudicial killings ( Go & De Ungria, 2019 ), prisoners on the so-called government's narcotics list have been told to stay in jail to remain alive ( Gomez, 2018 ). During the Duterte administration, the narcotics list was used to target drug suspects in police operations and drive-by shootings. The government has channeled ‘intelligence’ money so that the list could be updated and used as an integral instrument in the war on drugs ( Talabong, 2020 ). Many suspects from the most impoverished communities who have been caught because of the narcotics list cannot pose bail. During the period before the pandemic, police arrested nearly 100 drug suspects daily ( Morales, 2017 ). Most remain imprisoned throughout their trial, thus significantly adding to already overcrowded prison populations ( Jha, 2020 ). The situation became even worse during the pandemic when the police detained quarantine and curfew violators and placed them in jail ( Human Rights Watch, 2020 ; See, 2021 ).

These overcrowded jails and prisons with minimal provisions for health and sanitation ( Conde, 2016 ; Morales, 2017 ), do not allow for sufficient isolation of infected prisoners, quarantine of new inmates who could be infected or are SARS-CoV-2 carriers, and separation of elderly prisoners or those with pre-existing health conditions from the rest of the population ( Kahambing, 2021 ). Such a paradigm has been observed in other parts of the world, with jails being described as “under severe threat” of heightening the virus' transmission ( Montoya-Barthelemy, Lee et al., 2020 ). In the Philippines, more than 700 inmates were reported to have tested positive for coronavirus as of June 2020 ( See, 2020 ). This figure is expected to be much higher, albeit the latest numbers of infected cases in jails and prisons are not readily available ( International Committee of the Red Cross, 2020 ). Due to budget restrictions in Philippine prisons ( Narag & Jones, 2016 ), the supply of masks, nutritional food, soap, and even water does not meet the Department of Health's prescribed health requirements for a pandemic. To address problems resulting in overcrowded jails, the Philippine Supreme Court ordered the fast-tracking of cases via online trials, which led to the release of about 10,000 inmates ( Aben, 2020 ).

Additionally, during the extended periods of enhanced and modified community quarantine, family visits were not permitted or were highly restricted in many jails and prisons ( Pulta, 2020 ; See, 2021 ). Given that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been ongoing for more than a year, with many areas in the Philippines undergoing another major lockdown from 29 March until 30 April 2021 due to the resurgence of cases ( Atienza, 2021 ), there is an urgent need to consider the mental health of inmates and their families under these conditions. The pandemic situation that has seriously affected the already vulnerable mental state of prisoners, many of whom have had prior incidents with the law and are detained in severely overcrowded jails and prisons with insufficient number of correctional officers ( Narag, 2020 ) is a public health and safety crisis. Prisoners are reportedly dying and driven to suicide due to the slow pace of the justice system ( Macaraig, 2021 ). It is our view that Congress and the current administration should focus on long-term institutional solutions to these problems, such as decriminalizing the use of certain drugs and treating the drug problem as a health issue, rather than the passage of a death penalty law.

5. Is the death penalty the solution to the Philippines' war on drugs?

As acknowledged by President Duterte himself during his penultimate State of the Nation Address ( Rappler, 2020 ), the objective of the reimposition of the death penalty is primarily to serve as a deterrent to criminality (particularly drug-related offenses). However, this premise is essentially flawed since there are no conclusive studies that the death penalty deters the commission of crimes. The theory of criminal deterrence involves a three-pronged approach in which certainty, celerity, and severity of punishment work together to increase the cost of action so that a rational person will determine that the cost outweighs the benefit ( Durlauf & Nagin, 2011 ). This study suggested that the deterrent effect of certainty is far more potent than severity. Radelet and Lacock found that the consensus among the world's top criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment ( Radelet & Lacock, 2009 ). The certainty of apprehension and not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence was the more effective deterrent ( Nagin, 2013 ). It was shown using vector autoregression models that neither death sentences nor executions deter homicide or robbery-homicide in Japan ( Muramatsu, Johnson et al., 2017 ). Thus, the general assertion that the death penalty deters the commission of crimes is merely speculative at best ( Alhambra & Ramos, 2017 ; De Ungria & Jose, 2020 ). In our opinion, one major factor that supported the repeal of the death penalty in 2006 through Republic Act No. 9346 was the Philippine Supreme Court's finding in People v. Mateo that trial courts wrongfully imposed the death penalty in 71.77% of the cases brought up to it on automatic review ( People of the Philippines vs. Mateo, 2004 ).

Leechaianan and Longmire studied how governments in the United States of America, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand used capital punishment to stop drug trafficking. They concluded that the death penalty was not a proportionate punishment for drug-related offenses based on three considerations ( Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013 ). First, there was some dispute about whether drug trafficking can be considered a serious crime that would justify the death penalty based on international law. Second, since crimes warranting the death penalty are different for each country, implementing the death penalty would likely be an arbitrary exercise prohibited under international human rights law. Third, applying a mandatory death sentence based on the amount of drug involved increases the possibility of wrongful convictions ( Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013 ).

6. Overturning the presumption of innocence

The Philippine Constitution provides that in “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it” ( Republic of the Philippines, 1987 ). HB7814 appears to have disregarded these fundamental constitutional principles and rights.

First, in providing certain presumptions in the prosecution of drug cases, HB7814 reveals its prosecutorial bias since the burden is shifted to the accused to prove their innocence rather than on the prosecution to prove their guilt. For example, under HB7814, any person who is found or is present within the immediate vicinity of the area where dangerous drugs are being sold is presumed to be involved in the sale of dangerous drugs unless proven otherwise. Thus, hypothetically, if a drug buy-bust operation occurs inside a fast-food establishment, all the patrons who were simply inside the store could legally be arrested by the police based solely on this presumption and without a warrant. Worse, these persons would then have the burden of proving that they had nothing to do with the sale of dangerous drugs. Given the difficulty of establishing a negative averment and the high cost of hiring private counsels, the authors believe that inevitably the presumptions in this bill, if indiscriminately and arbitrarily applied, could lead to increased arrests for those who do not have the resources to defend themselves. Increasing the number of arrests would further burden the already overcrowded jails. Moreover, until reforms are put into place to minimize the flaws in the criminal justice system, there is a high probability that an innocent person could be sentenced to death for drug-related offenses under HB7814 based on mere presumptions.

In past cases, one of the most common claims raised by drug suspects when they are arrested is that the drug evidence had been planted on them by the authorities ( Human Rights Watch, 2017 ). In response and to deter abuse, lawmakers made the planting of evidence in drug cases a mandatory death sentence offense in HB7814. It even included a presumption that the person charged and prosecuted for “planting” evidence is presumed to have planted the evidence if the rules of procedure or engagement had not been complied with. However, another ‘presumption that official duty had been regularly performed’ could cancel out this ‘presumption of ‘guilt’ when a suspect accuses a police officer of planting evidence. In any event, it is the authors' opinion that two wrongs do not make things right. While it is improper for a person to be charged with selling drugs based on a mere presumption, it is equally erroneous for a police officer to be presumed to have “planted” evidence simply because the rules of procedure were not followed to the letter.

Second, HB7814 does not identify the compelling reasons why specific drug-related offenses deserve the mandatory death penalty than other similar crimes and why these mandatory death penalty offenses are even considered particularly heinous in and by themselves. In its decision in People v. Echegaray , the Philippine Supreme Court provided the severity of offenses that fall into heinous crimes ( People of the Philippines vs Echegaray, 1997 ) as " … the crimes punishable by death … are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, because 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".

But what makes the “planting” of evidence manifestly “wicked, vicious, atrocious, or perverse” to warrant the mandatory death penalty compared to a person who sells or manufactures dangerous drugs where a death penalty is merely an option? The situation is especially troubling when one considers that while a person arrested with at least 500 g of marijuana could be sentenced to death in the Philippines, there are countries where the use of marijuana is legal and regulated such as Uruguay and Canada, and where its use has been decriminalized such as Jamaica, South Africa, Georgia and the Netherlands ( http://affiliates.com / Affiliates.com, 2021 ).

Finally, if HB7814 eventually becomes law, it is the authors' opinion that the Philippines would be violating its international treaty obligations as a state party to the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( United Nations Office of the Commissioner on Human Rights, 1989 ). By ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1986 ( United Nations, 1989 ), and the 2nd Optional Protocol to the ICCPR without reservations in 2007, the Philippines, as a sovereign nation, voluntarily bound itself not to reimpose the death penalty ( Desert, 2008 ). The Philippines cannot legally withdraw from either the Protocol or the ICCPR ( Desert, 2008 ). To the best of the authors' knowledge, neither instrument has provisions on withdrawal or denunciation, with both tools being deliberately written to exclude these provisions. There could be adverse political and economic consequences for the Philippines if it violates its commitment to the 2nd Optional Protocol. It would be similar to reneging on the terms of a contract – other parties to the agreement and observers of the Philippines' behavior could lose trust and faith in the Philippines and its willingness to keep its commitments.

7. Conclusion

At the time of writing, the Philippines looks set to introduce a law that reimposes the death penalty and shifts the burden of proof to the accused to prove innocence. The use and trafficking of drugs that are deemed dangerous (not necessarily correlating with the current medical consensus) are seen as legitimate reasons for the death penalty. Congress failed to consider that most people who are using and abusing drugs suffer from mental disorders and co-morbidities, making the drug problem a public health issue. Simultaneously, the Philippines would be violating its international treaty commitments by implementing the death penalty law. In the authors' view, at this critical time when the criminal justice system faces numerous challenges resulting from the impact of the pandemic in overcrowded jails and prisons with minimal resources, an entire country's population burdened by limited movement due to quarantines targeted to prevent the spread of the disease, and an unstable economy that would take time to recover, the Philippine government must first focus on formulating and implementing multi-sectoral strategies, mainly focusing on the health sector, to stop the disease and foster a culture that values life, instead of promoting a culture of death.

Credit role

Jose M. Jose: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing: the original draft.

Maria Corazon A. De Ungria: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Writing: review and editing.

Declaration of competing interest

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Acknowledgement:

The authors thank Ms. Maria Socorro I. Diokno and members of the Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CADP) for interesting discussions on the death penalty. The authors also acknowledge the valuable recommendations made by the reviewer of this manuscript.

• Aben E. Philippines' top court moves to decongest jails across the country over COVID-19 fears. Arab News. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
• Affiliatescom T. 2021. Where in the world is cannabis legal? [ Google Scholar ]
• Alhambra A.M.V., Ramos M.A.M. Is the death penalty the answer? INTERSECT. 2017; IV :6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allard T., Lema K. Reuters; 2020. Exclusive: 'Shock and awe' has failed in Philippines drug war, enforcement chief says. [ Google Scholar ]
• Atienza K.A.T. Gov't places Metro Manila under stricter lockdown for 1 week. Business World. 2021 [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbers R.A.S., Garbin A.A.J. Committee report No. 550. Eighteenth Congress. 2020; 38 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Corrections . Bureau of Corrections; 2021. Statistics on prison congestion as of february 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caulkins J.P., Chandler S. Long-run trends in incarceration of drug offenders in the United States. Crime & Delinquency. 2006; 52 (4):619–641. [ Google Scholar ]
• CNN Philippines . CNN Philippines; 2021. Bill on presumption of guilt in drug-related crimes hurdles House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conde C.H. Human Rights Watch, Philippine Daily Inquirer; Metro Manila: 2016. Injustice and misery in PH jails. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrales N. Philippine Daily Inquirer; Metro Manila: 2017. Duterte admits he was wrong on 3-6 months drug war deadline. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Ungria M.C.A., Jose J.M. The war on drugs, forensic science and the death penalty in the Philippines. Forensic Science International: Synergy. 2020; 2 :32–34. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Desert P. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty; 2008. Second Optional Protocol. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickens C. 1859. A tale of two cities. [ Google Scholar ]
• DOH . Department of Health; Manila: 2021. DOH COVID-19 bulletin #379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlauf S., Nagin D. Imprisonment and Crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy. 2011; 10 (10) [ Google Scholar ]
• Espenido G. Philippines' war on drugs: Its implications to human rights in social work practice. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work. 2018; 3 :138–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Go M.C., De Ungria M.C.A. Forensic sciences and the Philippines' war on drugs. Forensic Science International. 2019; 1 :288–289. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomez J. Duterte to drug suspects: Want to live longer? Stay in jail. The Seattle Times, 2018 [ Google Scholar ]
• Human Rights Watch . 2017. “License to kill”: Philippine police killings in Duterte's “war on drugs” [ Google Scholar ]
• Human Rights Watch . 2020. Philippines: Reduce crowded jails to stop COVID-19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Human Rights Watch . Human Rights Watch; New York: 2021. World Report 2021: Events of 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of the Red Cross . 2020. COVID-19: Lessons from Philippines jails show how to fight infectious coronavirus disease. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jha P. BBC News; 2020. Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahambing J.G. Philippine prisons and 'extreme vulnerability' during COVID-19. Journal of Public Health. 2021; 43 (2):e285–e286. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr T., et al. The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2005; 16 (4):210–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laforga B.M. Pandemic pushes Philippine gov't debt to P9.8 trillion. Business World. 2021 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazo N., Rodriguez B. ABS-CBN News; 2020. 10.9 million Filipinos lost jobs, had lower incomes due to COVID-19 pandemic: Ilo. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leechaianan Y., Longmire D. The use of the death penalty for drug trafficking in the United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand:A comparative legal analysis. Laws. 2013; 2 :115–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leshner A.I. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science. 1997; 278 (5335):45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaraig A. Prisoners dying, driven to suicide due to slow justice in Philippines as drug war rages. Politik. 2021 [ Google Scholar ]
• Mapa D.S. 2021. Philippine GDP posts -8.3 percent in the fourth Quarter 2020; -9.5 percent for full-year 2020, Philippine Statistics Authority. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquez C. Philippine Daily Inquirer; Metro Manila; 2021. Drug war death toll reaches 6,011 as of December 2020 —Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montoya-Barthelemy A.G., et al. COVID-19 and the correctional environment: The American prison as a focal point for public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2020; 58 (6):888–891. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morales N.J. Reuters; 2017. Jails, justice system at breaking point as Philippine drugs war intensifies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muramatsu K., et al. Punishment & Society; 2017. The death penalty and homicide deterrence in Japan; pp. 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagin D.S. Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice. 2013; 42 (1):199–263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narag R.E. 2020. Understanding the conditions of new bilibid prisons: Implications for integrated reforms. (unpublished) [ Google Scholar ]
• Narag R.E., Jones C.R. Understanding prison management in the Philippines: A case for shared governance. The Prison Journal. 2016; 97 (1):3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• People of the Philippines vs. Echegaray . 1997. Philippine Supreme Court. [ Google Scholar ]
• People of the Philippines . 2004. vs Mateo, Philippine Supreme Court. [ Google Scholar ]
• Philippine Daily Inquirer . Philippine Daily Inquirer; Manila: 2021. Prolife, propoor’ stance on drugs. [ Google Scholar ]
• PTV News . 2021. DDB statement on the approval of House Bill 7814 amending RA 9165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pulta B. Philippine News Agency; 2020. Jail visits temporarily suspended amid Covid-19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Radelet M.L., Lacock T.L. Do executions lower homicide rates?: The views of leading criminologists. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2009; 99 (2):489–508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rappler . Rappler; 2020. President duterte's state of the nation address 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Republic of the Philippines . 1987. The constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reyes D.A. The early Duterte presidency in the Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 2016; 35 (3):111–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• See A.B. Rappler; 2020. Hidden victims of the pandemic: The old man, the jail aide, and the convict. [ Google Scholar ]
• See A.B. Time; 2021. Rodrigo Duterte is using one of the world's longest COVID-19 lockdowns to strengthen his grip on the Philippines. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simbulan N., et al. The Manila declaration on the drug problem in the Philippines. Annals of Global Health. 2019; 85 (1):26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Talabong R. Rappler; 2020. Big funds, little transparency: How Duterte's drug list works. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations . United Nations; 1948. International Bill of Human Rights: A universal declaration of human rights. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Office of the Commissioner on Human Rights Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. General Assembly resolution 44/128 of 15. 1989 [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime . 2019. Guidance for community-based treatment and care services for people affected by drug use and dependence in the Philippines. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime . Vol. 2. 2020. p. 52. (Drug use and health consequences: 2020 World Drug Report). Vienna. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Prison Brief Highest to Lowest - occupancy level (based on official capacity) 2020. https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/occupancy-level?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All from.

Philippines: March 2018 National Survey on Public Perceptions on the Death Penalty By Social Weather Stations (SWS), on 1 January 2018

This is the main finding of the March 2018 National Survey on Public Perception on the Death Penalty, conducted by Social Weather Stations (SWS) for the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP). This is the first survey in the Philippines to explore thought processes and disentangle layers of perceptions about the death penalty. It did face-to-face interviews of 2,000 respondents aged 15 and above nationwide during the period March 22 to 27, 2018.

21st World Day Against the Death Penalty – The death penalty: An irreversible torture

Helping the World Achieve a Moratorium on Executions

In 2007, the World Coalition made one of the most important decisions in its young history: to support the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as a step towards universal abolition. A moratorium is temporary suspension of executions and, more rarely, of death sentences. […]

• Subscribe Now

FAST FACTS: Death penalty in the world and in the Philippines

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

MANILA, Philippines – At least 28,670 persons around the world are facing the death penalty, according to Amnesty International.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty marks October 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty, in an effort to encourage governments around the world to reconsider the use of capital punishment as a means to deter heinous crimes.

Celebrating its 20th year , the 170-organization-strong movement also advocates against the inhumane means and treatments used against people on death row. “The World Day will be dedicated to reflecting on the relationship between the use of the death penalty and torture or other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment,” the group said.

Global statistics

Amnesty International recorded 579 executions in 18 countries last 2021. China continues to be the country with the most executions, estimated to be in the thousands, but exact numbers are kept under lock and key. North Korea and Vietnam’s number of executions are also being hidden.

Belarus, Japan, and the UAE resumed executions last 2021, while India, Qatar, and Taiwan did not have any executions that year. The countries of Sierra Leone, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia have abolished the death penalty. Papua New Guinea abolished it once more – it had done so in 1974, reinstated it in 1991, before abolishing it last January 2022.

Death penalty in the Philippines

Capital punishment in the country dates back to the Spanish colonial era. Figures like national hero Jose Rizal, as well as Filipino Catholic priests Mariano Gomez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GomBurZa), were executed by firing squad and garrote, respectively.

The electric chair was introduced as a method of execution during the period of American colonialization. After gaining independence in 1946, a total of six presidents have had executions during their term, namely: Elpidio Quirino (13), Ramon Magsaysay (6), Carlos Garcia (14), Diosdado Macapagal (2), Ferdinand E. Marcos (32), and Joseph Estrada (7).

The administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo commuted the sentences of at least 1,230 death row inmates on April 15, 2006, a number considered by Amnesty International to be the largest ever. Republic Act 9346 was then signed on June 24, 2006, abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. Life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua took its place.

Leo Echegaray was the last person to be served the death penalty in the Philippines in 1999 when he was executed via lethal injection. He was convicted for the rape of 10-year-old Rodessa Echegaray

On death row

Despite the lifting of the death penalty in the country, there are Filipinos abroad who are awaiting execution.

The most prominent among the convicted is Mary Jane Veloso, a domestic worker in Indonesia who was arrested and convicted in 2010 for drug trafficking. She was granted a last-minute stay of execution to act as a witness against her human trafficker. She has yet to testify due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the United States Death Penalty Information Center , as of October 2021, there are two Filipinos on death row, awaiting execution: Sonny Enraca for the fatal shooting of an actor in 1999 and Ralph Simon Jeremias also for the fatal shooting of two men in 2009. Two other Filipinos in Abu Dhabi were handed the death sentence for possession and sale of illegal drugs and substances last January 2022.

Administrative moves for reinstatement

Former president Rodrigo Duterte was vocal about wanting to reinstate the death penalty during his term, saying that it is a fitting punishment for heinous crimes. 

Former UN Human Rights commissioner Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein, however, wrote to then-House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and then-Senate president Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III in 2016, telling them that a state that has signed or acceded to the United Nations Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is not allowed by international law to denounce it or withdraw from it.

“When a State ratifies the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, it guarantees that no one can be executed within its jurisdiction,” he said.

The House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 7814 last March 2021, which allows the presumption of guilt for those involved in illegal drugs. The death penalty is the maximum punishment that can be meted out to sentenced persons.

Public opinion on the death penalty

In a 2018 Social Weather Stations report on public perceptions of the death penalty, less than half of Filipinos demanded the use of the death penalty for serious drug-related crimes.

A study concluded in 2020 by the Commission on Human Rights showed that despite 6 out of 10 Filipinos showing moderate support for the death penalty, 7 out of 10 chose restorative methods of justice when presented with alternative punishments. Only 3 out of 10 Filipinos strongly support the death penalty, the study said. – with reports from Pauline Regalario/Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, human rights, [judgment call] resisting mob mentality for warrantless arrests.

The whistleblower

Philippines joins biggest case vs climate change, tells court ‘polluters must pay’

European Union, UN criticize new Hong Kong security law

South Korea-hosted summit warns of AI risks to democracy

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+