I. Introduction
Death penalty is a major world issue. Many organizations and institutions like Amnesty International and the Catholic Church advocate for its abolition. Many countries like the Philippines remove the penalty of death in their existing laws and one of the alleged main factors of its lifting is religion. In the world, as released by Amnesty International (2008), there are 135 out of 197 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice while 62 countries preserve and employ the death penalty, most often as a retribution for people convicted of murder. At least 1,591 people were known to be executed in 25 countries during 2006. The 91 % of all identified executions in 2006 happened in China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the USA.
By definition, Capital Punishment, also called as Death Penalty, is the legal infliction of death as a penalty for violating criminal law. Throughout history people have been put to death for various forms of wrongdoing. Methods of execution have included such practices as crucifixion, stoning, drowning, burning at the stake, impaling, and beheading. Today, capital punishment is typically accomplished by lethal gas or injection, electrocution, hanging, or shooting (Zimring, 2006).
This paper is a study of religion and politics in the Philippines in a broader sense wherein the factor of religion will be examined through the methods of content analysis and philosophical/scriptural approach of the history, actions, arguments and statements of the actors who are related to the decisions of death penalty from the news articles, previous studies and transcript of legislative procedures. This paper seeks to determine if religion is the main factor in the decision of abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. The analysis of the facts will focus on two branches of government that are involved in the decision making process in the abolition of death penalty which are the legislative and the executive branch. The Philippine and Church History on death penalty will be also presented and compared because on those events trends will be better understood. Arguments and theories on death penalty will be also presented and analyzed and also see how religion has influenced those arguments. The paper is not made to make a stand on death penalty but just to see the impact of religion in it. However, it may help the readers to make a stand on the issue. This paper will also help in answering some questions regarding the separation of Church and State in the Philippine context.
However, there are several limitations of the study. One of these is the restricted access to the full records of the Philippine legislature. In that case, secondary materials such as worldwide web postings, and other publications within the public sphere were used. Another limitation is the assurance and sincerity of the press statements of the actors involved because this paper strongly relies on the news articles and documents regarding death penalty that are available.
II. History of Death Penalty in the Philippines
The imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines has an exploitive history. For the most part which is from 1848 to 1987, it was used to restrain the liberties, freedoms and rights of the Filipino people. In recent history, however, the death penalty was imposed again as a hasty response to what has largely been seen as rising criminality in the country (Pabico, 2006). But later on, the Senate and House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty (Datinguinoo, 2006) and approved by the President afterwards.
The Mamamayang Tutol sa Bitay-Movement for Restorative Justice (MTBMRJ) has provided a comprehensive history report of death penalty in the Philippine context.
In the Spanish Period (1521-1898), Spanish colonizers brought with them medieval Europe’s penal system, including executions. The Death Panalty during the early Spanish Period took various forms including burning, decapitation, drowning, flaying, garrote, hanging, shooting, stabbing and others. Capital punishment was preserved in the 1848 Spanish Penal Code and was only imposed on locals who challenged the established authority of the colonizers. From 1840 to 1857, recorded death sentences totaled 1,703 with 46 actual executions. Filipinos who were death penalized include Magat Salamat in 1587; Gomez, Burgos and Zamora who were garroted in 1872; and Dr. Jose Rizal, who was shot last December 30, 1896. All of them are now considered as heroes (MTBMRJ, 2006).
In the American Period (1898-1934), the American colonizers, adopting most of the provisions under the Penal Code of 1848, maintain the death penalty. When the Penal Code was revised in 1932, treason, parricide, piracy, kidnapping, murder, rape, and robbery with homicide were considered capital offenses and warranted the death penalty. The Sedition Law of 1901, Brigandage Act of 1902, Reconcentration Act of 1903, and Flag Law of 1907 were enacted to sanction the use of force, including death, against all nationalist Filipinos. Macario Sakay was one of those penalized by the capital punishment through public hanging for leading a resistance group. The capital punishment continued to be an integral part of the pacification process of the country by the Americans (MTBMRJ, 2006).
Recorded or documented cases of executions through the death penalty are not available during Japanese Occupation (1941-1945) just because extrajudicial executions were widely practiced as part of the Japanese’s conciliation action to the country (MTBMRJ, 2006).
In the Post-World War II (1946-1965), Espionage was added to the list of capital offenses while the Anti-Subversion Law called for the death penalty for all Communist leaders. However, no executions were recorded for any captured communist leader. For this period, 35 people were executed for offenses that the Supreme Court labeled as “crimes of senseless depravity or extreme criminal perversity (MTBMRJ, 2006).”
In the Marcos Regime (1965-1986), deterrence became the official justification for the imposition of the death penalty. This is the same justification used for the declaration of Martial Law in 1972. The number of capital crimes increased to a total of 24. Some crimes which were made punishable by death through laws and decrees during the Marcos period were subversion, possession of firearms, arson, hijacking, embezzlement, drug-related offenses, illegal possession of firearms, illegal fishing, and cattle rustling. Citing the famous death penalty cases in that period, Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, and Edgardo Aquino were executed for the gang rape of movie star Maggie dela Riva in 1972. In spite of prohibitions against public executions, the execution of the three was done in full view of the public. There are nineteen executions took place during the Pre-Martial Law period while twelve (12) were executed during Martial Law. Also in this period, Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. was sentenced to die by firing squad for charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm in 1977. The last judicial execution under the Marcos years was in October 1976 when Marcelo San Jose was executed through electrocution. Comparable to the reasons for the imposition of capital punishment during the Colonial Periods, the death penalty during the Marcos Regime was imposed to subdue rebellion and social disturbances (MTBMRJ, 2006).
After the EDSA revolution during the time of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino (1986-1992), the Death Penalty was abolished under the 1987 Constitution. The Philippines was the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. All death sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In 1988, the military started lobbying for the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by the CPP-NPA (MTBMRJ, 2006).
In the time of President Fidel Valdez Ramos (1993-1998), high profile crimes are increasing, counting the murder of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. That created public impression that heinous crimes were on the rise. The Ramos administration again imposed the death penalty by virtue of Republic Act No. 7659 (See Appendix 6) in December 1993 to address the rising criminality and incidence of heinous crimes. In that period, the Death Penalty Law lists a total of 46 crimes punishable by death and 25 of these are death mandatory while 21 are death eligible. Then later on, Republic Act No. 8177 (See Appendix 7) mandates that a death sentence shall be carried out through lethal injection (MTBMRJ, 2006).
In the time of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001), Leo Echegaray was executed in February 1999 and was followed by six other executions for various heinous crimes. In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume, instead of abating, ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from 71,527 crimes in the previous year). Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year (MTBMRJ, 2006).
In the time of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-present), she publicly stated that she is not in favor of executions. But due to the rise in crimes related to drugs and kidnappings that targeted the Filipino-Chinese community, she announced that she would resume executions “to sow fear into the hearts of criminals” so Arroyo lifted the de facto moratorium issued by Estrada on December 5, 2003. Even as executions were set to resume on January 2004, this did not push through by virtue of a Supreme Court decision to reopen the Lara-Licayan case. Since then, the administration has been issuing reprieves on scheduled executions without actually issuing a moratorium. With the amendment of Republic Act No. 8353 - Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (See Appendix 8) and Republic Act No. 9165 - Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002 (See Appendix 9), there are now 52 capital offenses, 30 of which are death mandatory and 22 are death eligible. On April 6, 2006, President Arroyo declared a commutation of 1000 Death Sentences. The big decision comes when Senate and House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty last June 6, 2006 with the Senate Bill No. 2254 (See Appendix 11) with 15-0 votes and House Bill No. 4826 (See Appendix 12) with 119-20 votes; the President immediately signed it afterwards to be a law last June 24, 2006 (MTBMRJ, 2006). It is now called the Republic Act 9346 – An Act Abolishing the Death Penalty in the Philippines (See Appendix 10).
I. Religious History and Arguments on Death Penalty
Most major religions in the Philippines are Christian in terms of faith and one of the major foundations of their faith is the Holy Bible. In that Sacred Scriptures we can see instances and stands regarding the use of death penalty in crimes. In the Bible, the history of the early Jewish Tradition wherein Christian faith came from was written.
In the Old Testament of the Bible, particularly the Mosaic Law, most of the crimes were punishable by death. The crimes indicated in the Bible that were punishable by death are following other religion (Exodus 22:20), a stranger entering the temple (Numbers 1:51), proselytizing (Deuteronomy 13:1-10), communicating with the dead (Leviticus 20:27), black magic (Exodus 22:18), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), incest (Leviticus 20:11), bestiality (Leviticus 20:15), prostitution (Leviticus 20:13), sexual activity before marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), being seduced if engaged (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), rape of an engaged woman (Deuteronomy 22:25), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9), murder (Leviticus 24:17/ Leviticus 24:21), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5), cursing parents (Exodus 21:17), abusing one's parents (Exodus 21:15), careless handling of an animal (Exodus 21:29), stubbornness and rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), working on Saturday (Exodus 35:2/Numbers 15:32-36), ignoring the decision of a priest or judge (Deuteronomy 17:12), perjury (Deuteronomy 19:15-21), accidentally killing a pregnant woman (Exodus 21:22-23), male who was not circumcised (Genesis 17:14), eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:15), manufacturing anointing oil (Exodus 30:33), engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple (Leviticus 17:1-9), consuming blood (Leviticus 17:10), eating peace offerings while ritually unclean (Leviticus 7:20), waiting too long before consuming sacrifices (Leviticus 19:5-8), Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating (Leviticus 20:18), going to the temple in an unclean state (Numbers 19:13), persons teaching another religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-11), a prophet whose prophecy does not come true (Deuteronomy 18:22), gluttony and excessive drinking (Deuteronomy 21:20). This shows that in the early Jewish tradition, death penalty is already legal and said to be according to God’s law.
The God in the Old Testament is said that He has done direct death execution by himself like the story of Great flood in the book of Genesis (ReligiousTolerance.org).
However, a contradicting punishment was also shown in the book of Genesis, first was in the murder of Cain’s brother wherein God disallows death penalty with this passage from Genesis 4:11-15:
"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; ...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the LORD said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
That statement contradicts this passage from Genesis 9:6 saying that murder is punishable by death, the passage said:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Even in the New Testament, Jesus Christ has no concrete stand regarding death penalty. Jesus stated that the Mosaic Law (supports death penalty) shall be retained in Matthew 5:17-19 by saying:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Contrary to that, in John 8:3-11, Jesus Christ intervened in an execution of a woman guilty of adultery by saying:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
In this case, it is impossible to prove that the Bible can be a basis of abolishing or retaining death penalty because of its inconsistency of stand. It is the Church officials themselves who has the decision of the stands of various Christian sects and not the Bible itself.
In the Early Roman Empire era, Christians were target of death penalty because Christianity at that time is considered as an illegal religion until Constantine came into the picture. But in that case, the situation was just reversed wherein Christian kills the non-Christians. There are also issues of Christians killing fellow Christians because of doctrinal differences (Mergivern, 1997).
In the Medieval Period, death penalty in the Christian community is still acceptable and they often apply it on the heretics. Medieval Theologians and Philosophers like St. Thomas had the stand agreeing in death penalty (Mergivern, 1997). Aquinas’ (1254) main argument says common good is more important than the life of one person. Part of his book (Suma Contra Gentiles) stated:
“Now the Physicians quite properly and beneficially amputates a diseased organ if it threatens the corruption of the body. Therefore, the ruler of the state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly, in order that peace of state may not be disturbed.”
In the reformation period, the Protestants will for change does not forbid death penalty while the Catholic Church still imposed the capital punishments on the heretics until the shift of Vatican I to Vatican II occurred. In Vatican II, the view of the Catholic Church in death penalty has slowly reversed and countries like Italy and Germany started to abolish that sanction (Megivern, 1997).
For the stand of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, the CBCP's position on the death penalty is based on the thinking uttered by the Holy See, most lately in the 1995 Papal Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae or Gospel of Life. In this account, Pope John Paul II brought the Church the closest it has come to calling for a ban on capital punishment by stating that: in modern societies, cases of justifiable capital punishment are 'practically non-existent'. He noted that:
“.... there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it (the death penalty) be applied in a very limited manner or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society.”
In the same statement the Pope also referred positively to the abolition of the death penalty when, speaking of 'signs of hope', he cited:
“…. growing opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of 'legitimate defense' on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”
With the observance to the issue of death penalty, CBCP President and the Arch Bishop of Jaro Anghel Lagmadeo (2006) stated that:
“The control of criminality as well as the reform of society is a common responsibility of the government, church and civil society. Corruption, immorality and poverty breed criminality. Therefore, less of these would mean less criminality. Crime breeds crime. The rehabilitation and reformation of pardoned criminals must also be assured for the continuing peace and harmony in society.”
However, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo acknowledged the country was facing rising crime rates but said:
"We (CBCP) believe that we should find another way of defending society that will obviate the need for the death penalty, which only brings out the worst in us all."
In relation to previous statements by Archbishop Lagmadeo, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:
“The Church sees as a sign of hope a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of legislative defense on the part of society. Modern Society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform… The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestation of a heightened moral consciousness.”
According to the Chairman of CBCP-ECPPC Bishop Pedro Arigo (2006), "we don't have to kill people only to show that it is bad and criminal to kill" while the Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz (2006) stated that though the government has the power to enforce penalty on convicted criminals, the government has still no right to take the life of human persons by death penalty. He strongly stated:
"The life of any human person is not given by the government, is not owned by the government, and may not be wherefore taken away by the government,"
Cruz also posits that with the abolition of death penalty, crime will continue to happen not because of the lifting of the law and he stated:
"… but rather on account of evil human tendencies, due to weak police work and slow wheel of justice if not triumph of injustice. Human justice is not always just. This is especially true in this country where the ignorant, the poor and the helpless do not only have less in life but also less in law. Those condemned to death by the courts of the land by and large come from practically those living in poverty and want."
Also according to the CBCP, their decision is not purely doctrinal in stand, and it is a pastoral one. But like all pastoral stand, it is based on Church doctrine.
With regards to death penalty the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) No. 56 states:
“… if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limits itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person."
IV. Arguments from non-religious sectors
The arguments from non-religious sectors like politicians and non government organizations (NGO) are very important in the decision for the removal of death penalty because they can influence in the decision making process of it.
From an Inquirer Report (2006), Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, a co-author of the House Bill 4826, the bill that proposes to abolish death penalty, cited the following reasons why capital punishment should be abolished:
• It violates the ultimate right of a person to live.
• The death of a criminal in the hands of the State will diminish rather than uplift the human spirit.
• The death penalty is viewed as a “cruel, degrading, and inhuman” punishment.
• The enforcement of the death penalty did not comply with the law which requires the existence of “compelling reasons” to justify its imposition.
• It has not been proven that the death penalty will be a deterrent to crimes. Lagman pointed out that although the crime rate in the country was high between 1987 and 1994 when there was no death penalty, its restoration in 1994 did not stop the upsurge of criminal offenses, particularly kidnapping, rape, and drug trafficking.
In fact, Lagman’s two brothers (Hermon Lagman and Piliemon “Ka Popoy” Lagman) are victims of heinous crimes and that does not stop him in making sponsoring that anti-death penalty bill (Mariano, 2006). Lagman stated:
“Not all families of victims of heinous crimes believe that the only way the perpetrators can atone for their wickedness is to pay for it with their lives. Despite the death of my two brothers, my family and I are unwavering in our opposition to capital punishment. The viciousness experienced by my brothers in the hands of their killers will not be wiped away by the execution of their executioners. A grievous wrong cannot be righted by state-sanctioned murder. The horror of those crimes will not be diminished by the equally horrific image of poison being pumped into the criminal’s veins. We do not honor life when we demand for the blood of murderers, rapists and drug lords. Killing is wrong, no matter who does the killing (Mariano, 2006).”
Lagman counter-argued the idea of death penalty deterring crime by saying:
“Of the total inmates on death row, 60 percent were aware that capital punishment was in force and effect in the Philippines before they committed their crimes. Clearly, the death penalty has failed as a deterrent to crime nor is it the panacea to lawlessness. Rather, it perpetuates a culture of violence and continues to sanctify vengeance virtue (Mariano, 2006).”
He also said that the stand against capital punishment among the victims of heinous is not unusual by stating:
"This stance by victims of capital crimes is not uncommon. Corretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr., former President Corazon Aquino, Rep. Salacnib Baterina, whose father was murdered before his very eyes, and even basketball great Michael Jordan, whose father was also murdered, are all staunch opponents of the death penalty (Mariano, 2006).”
A survey has been conducted by the Coalition Against the Death Penalty in the Philippines (Amnesty International, 1997) and it says that the death penalty is being applied inexplicably against the poor, disadvantaged and ill-educated. However, the numbers were not released. There is a severe realization that the patterns of the past seem just to be repeated. A study of the pre-abolition period resulted that of the 82 prisoners executed between 1926 and 1976, 92 % came from the lower socio-economic sector (Amnesty International, 1997).
According to the Pro-Life Philippines (2005), Capital punishment is not the answer to increasing criminality. Actually, the death penalty has no place in a civilized society, much less in a society which proclaims obedience to democratic principles and to endorsement of human rights. It has been renowned that the source of all human corruption lies in the impunity of the criminal, not in the control of punishment. Pro-life strongly posted that it is not the harshness of punishment that deters the commission of criminal acts, but the assurance of punishment.
According to the Amnesty International (1989), death penalty does not have the capability to reduce crime or political violence and there is no convincing evidence that is uniquely able to protect society from crime despite of many scientific studies of the relationship of death penalty and crime rates. Based on the crime statistics from the Philippine National Police (PNP), there is no big difference on the crimes rates (Rape and Murder) before and after the implementation and/or abolition of Death Penalty. (See Appendix 3). The Amnesty International also posits that death penalty is used improperly against the poor and against racial and ethnic minorities, imposed and inflicted arbitrarily, irrevocable punishment that results to execution of the innocent, and violation of fundamental human rights.
Theories have been proposed in favor of death penalty and the first theory is deterrence wherein it is necessary to kill offender to discourage other people from committing crime. It maybe a plausible argument in the first glance but there are no empirical evidence to prove that. It is said that murder is committed with extreme passion overcoming reason meaning, a person does not think of death sentence before committing the crime (Amnesty International, 1989).
Another theory is preventing prisoners from repeating their offenses. Obviously, when a person dies, he cannot repeat the crime that he did because dead people has no ability to do so. But in reality, a study has been made that people who gained parole charged by death penalty crimes like murder seldom repeat their crimes (Amnesty International, 1989).
The next theory is the retribution wherein it says that criminals should be killed no because of deterrence and incapacitation but because for the criminal to repay his evil deed. But, in this argument, unfairness and bias is seen in reality wherein not all criminal charged with murders are executed especially for those rich people that can afford to win cases. The poor people are the common executants of death penalty (Amnesty International, 1989).
Public opinion is one of the strongest arguments of the propagators of Death Penalty. In the United States, Gallup Poll (2004) is saying that more people of any religion practicing and not practicing are strongly in favor of death penalty (See Appendix 4). An Online Survey is being conducted by Lawrence Hinman (2001) of University of San Diego. The survey is still going on in the present and as of now, the respondents is 5449. The survey has five (5) questions (See Appendix 5) about the stand on death penalty. In the survey, many agreed (32.75%) and strongly agreed (22.15%) that death penalty’s purpose is to payback on the offender while more agreed (42.92%) and strongly agreed (35.75%) that death penalty’s purpose is to deter crime. However, in the issue of its morality, it seems that the respondents have no common stand.
But, the Amnesty International (1989) has two responses to the high support of the public in death penalty. First is that human rights should never be dependent in public opinion. For example, torturing a person is not allowable even if the public supports it. The second response is that public polls on death penalty are not often based on complete pertinent facts, and also, the results of the surveys can vary depending on how the questions that have been asked. If the public is well informed about the issue, they might support the abolition of death penalty.
Various anti-crime groups in the Philippines are against the abolition of death penalty practically because of the fear of increase of crime rates and injustice to the victims of heinous crimes (Toms, 2006). Dante Jimenez of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, whose members are relatives of heinous crimes, stated:
"This government is siding with criminals and not the victims. Now some victims of heinous crimes may resort to hired killers to get justice. Victims of heinous crimes do not have, any more, the legal weapon to penalize those who have hurt them, who have inflicted harm to their loved ones. (Toms, 2006)"
Jimenez suspected that Mrs. Arroyo removed the death penalty law just to please Pope Benedict XVI in their meeting after the approval of the law (Toms, 2006). He added that the move comes at a bad timing, when terrorists, criminal syndicates and kidnappers are vigorous while the police and justice system is not effective. Ha also said that the government didn’t consult their group about the issue (Bakshian, 2006).
According to a GMA report (2006), Surigao del Norte Representative Ace Barbers wants the death penalty to be reimposed because of many political killings involving politicians, labor union leaders, prominent personalities, mediamen, lawyers, and judges since the abolition of death penalty. According to Paranaque Representative Roilo Golez, 111 cases of these political killings are high profile and one of these is the case of Abra Representative Luis Versamin Jr. who was killed last December 12. Barbers posited that the death penalty law had in no way given a chance to prove its effectiveness because of the postponement of most executions of death row convicts. Indeed he also stated:
"I don’t agree with the arguments presented by the pro-life groups during the debates to repeal the death penalty law, saying that the law was not effective to prevent heinous crime from happening. (GMA News, 2006)"
Now that different arguments from different sectors has been already been presented, the question of the validity of death penalty is still unclear but those arguments from different sectors that are against death penalty has common argument that it doesn’t really deter crime but those who are for death penalty, they say that crime is rising because of its abolition and the victims must be given justice.
V. Analysis of the Recent Philippine Executives’ Statements and Actions on Death Penalty
Executive actions were very important on the decisions made concerning death penalty because they have the power to approve veto the proposed bills made by the Senate and House of Representatives. The president has also the capacity to suspend the law or give the executive clemency. In this part, the actions of the recent Executive branch of the Philippines regarding death penalty will be discussed and analyzed.
In the time of Corazon Aquino, a Commission debate has been took place about the abolition of death penalty. Throughout the Constitutional Commission’s debate, the Catholic Church played a major role, positing for respect for life and calling for efficient reformative measures to be one of judicial errors, and the prolonged suffering the death penalty imposed on the prisoners and their families (Amnesty International, 1997). The decision to abolish the death penalty was based on these four main arguments expressed in the debates of the Constitutional Commission:
• that capital punishment, even if not carried out, was inhuman because it traumatizes not only the prisoner but also his family;
• that there was no solid evidence to show that the death penalty had acted as an effective deterrent against the commission of serious crimes;
• that life was a divine gift and as such should not be put in the hands of a human judge;
• that modern penal systems favored reformative rather that vindictive punishment.
It is noticed in the third argument, the word “divine gift” is present that is usually associated to religion and the argument sounds like a teaching in religion. The fourth argument is saying that we should give chance for the people to change for the better and we can associate that in the religious teachings that to forgive others because God forgives.
In the time of President Ramos, the Roman Catholic Church (82 per cent of those on death row in that time are Catholic) have played a consistently important role in seeking to question prevailing political and popular opinion suggesting that the answer to criminality, especially appalling heinous offences, is the execution of prisoners (Amnesty International, 2007). In July 1997 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) responded to a government announcement that the first executions would take place in early 1998 by stating that the official push for executions was:
"...an implicit admission of the government's failure and utter helplessness in enforcing the law, improving the judicial system and setting up a truly reformative prison program. (Amnesty International, 2007)."
The CBCP also made clear their conviction that:
“The government has once again chosen to turn a blind eye to those who will ultimately be executed -- the powerless and helpless majority "(Amnesty International, 2007).
In the case of Fidel Ramos, it is clear that the removal of death penalty in his administration is not in his business. The religious sectors’ voices are not effective to influence Ramos in abolishing death penalty because of two factors. First is that he is from the military particularly constabulary that are responsible in solving crimes in the Philippines. In history, the military was lobbying to impose death penalty for the crimes committed by the CCP-NPA during the Aquino period. That means, military people are not really against that punishment. Second is the fact Ramos is not a Catholic (he is a Methodist Christian) that removes him from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Bishops. Though the Methodist Christians stood against death penalty, the Protestant Christians has less conservative regulations than the Catholics that gave Ramos more the opportunity to bring back the death penalty.
The Estrada administration advocated the death penalty as the antidote to crime in the first part of his administration. The reason behind that was that if the criminals will be afraid to commit crimes if they see that the government is determined to execute them. Oppositions maintained that the death penalty is not a deterrent and that there have been studies already debunking the deterrence theory. Legislators and politicians refused to heed the recommendation of the Supreme Court for Congress to review the death penalty riding on the popularity of the pro-death penalty sentiment (Lamban, 2000).
On June 25, 1999, Estrada announced that rapist Eduardo Agbayani would die that day. Forty-five minutes later the president wavered. Estrada had received an appeal from Bishop Teodoro Bacani then Estrada (at home at that time) called the injection room but he got a busy signal, then a fax tone. By the time an aide raced to the official palace hotline, Agbayani was dead (Gluckman, 1999). In that case, the influence of the Catholic Church is clearly seen in the appeal of Bishop Bacani.
In the year 2000, Estrada issued a de facto moratorium on executions in the face of church-led campaigns to abolish the death penalty and in observance of the Jubilee Year (Pablico, 2006) and attempts to reconcile with its long feud with the Catholic Church (Tagayuna, 2004). Now, it is clearly seen in this situation that at first, Estrada was in favor of the death penalty but just because of the observance of the Jubilee year which is associated to religion and attempt of reconciliation of his feud with the Catholic Church, Estrada lifted the policy.
In the case of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, she brought back the death penalty because of increase of certain crimes then later on commuted 1000 death sentences last April 15, 2006, an Easter Sunday, announcing:
"On the occasion of Easter, it is my honor to announce our policy to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment."
The factor of religion is clearly seen there because it was announced on a very important day in the Catholic Church. The move was criticized by anti-crime groups and political opponents who accused the embattled President of seeking the Church's approval because the Catholic Church, a vocal critic of President Arroyo, has been leading a campaign for the abolition of the death penalty. The Manila Standard (Maragay and Pelovello, 2006) reported that the Catholic Church is against the Arroyo’s promotion of the People’s Initiative in amending the constitution that time. In relation to that issue, Senator Rodolfo Biazon stated and asked:
“This commutation is a political move, not a humanitarian move. Is this an attempt to woo the Church back?
The Palace defended its stand and portion of Ignacio Bunye’s speech says:
"The President's decision came after deep contemplation and reflection in the field of Christian values. The people's power to forgive under both the Bible and the Constitution can change a nation for good, especially at these times that cry for compassion and reconciliation."
That statement of Bunye strengthens the claim of the Religion factor in Arroyo’s decision of commuting death sentences because of the presence of the words “Christian values” and “Bible” in the statement.
At that time, The CBCP commends on the President's announcement, but restated its call for the government to abolish the death penalty in legislation. In relation to that, in a Union of Catholic Asian (UCA) News report (2006), Rodolfo Diamante, Executive Secretary of the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care (ECPPC), are doing their job in lobbying for the bills that would abolish the death penalty and stated that:
"We have already solicited a great number of congressmen's and senators' commitments to have the death-penalty law abolished."
But Diamante worried about the public perception (figures are not available in the source) saying that more Filipinos are in favor of the death penalty due to the general perception that this penalty is a crime deterrent action and in that case, The ECCPC are not just lobbying in the Congress but also parishes schools and communities. Since its 2006 in that time, another worry of Diamante is the pressure from the pro-death penalty groups that might change their minds because of the upcoming 2007 elections (UCANews, 2006). In that situation, it seems that the Catholic Church really pushed hard on the abolishment of death penalty. In July 24, 2006, the president signed the approved bills of the Congress. A meeting was held with Pope Benedict XVI afterwards to reaffirm the country’s special ties with the Vatican (Javellana-Santos, 2006) and it seems to be a good timing after signing the anti-death penalty measures. With that, President Arroyo may please the Pope and that indicates that the satisfying the Vatican seems to be a very important matter to the President.
Apparently, a car bomb explosion happened six days before the approval of the bill. With regards to the incident, the president just stated:
“We will never be intimidated by these treacherous acts, and we shall fight terror as seriously as we embrace peace and development. We will not relent until the total defeat of terrorists in every part of the country. We have taken a strong hand against the threats to the law and the republic, but at the same time we yield to the high moral imperatives dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment. (Javellana-Santos, 2006)”
As seen in the statement, the word “God” is present wherein that indicates and manifests the religious factor in the decision of lifting the death penalty in the Philippines by the President.
VI. Analysis of the Philippine Legislative’s Statements, Actions and Decision on Death Penalty (13th Congress)
The President cannot execute a formal law without the proceedings in the legislative area of the government and this is how crucial the role of the House of Representatives and Senate in abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines.
In the proceedings done in the House of Representatives, the bill on abolishing death penalty (See Appendix 11) was approved on third and final reading, certified as urgent by Malacanang, abolishing the death penalty in the country in the vote of 119-20. The transcript of the proceeding in the House of Representative did not become a basis on this analysis because of poor archiving system of the House of Representatives and that limits the study. The information is just from the Lower House press release (congress.gov.ph).
In these proceedings in the Lower House, the impact of religion was not so clear though former House Speaker Jose de Venecia stated that the abolition of death penalty is in consonance with the trend in the European Union and the canons of the Catholic Church. As seen in the situation, the canons of the Catholic Church were used as basis but it is just the opinion of the House Speaker not de Venecia is that part of drafting the bill. Going back few years, in the 9th congress, de Venecia approved the bill of imposing death penalty on heinous crimes. A clear inconsistency is clearly showed in this situation and other political motives might be possible in making that turnabout decision of him.
The major arguments why the House of Representatives decided on the stand against death penalty are the following:
• It is not deterrent to crime;
• Judicial error
• death penalty is retributive justice, therefore vengeful and barbaric;
• it is the ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment;
• it is irrevocable;
• it shuts out rehabilitative justice;
• it raises the likelihood of criminals becoming more violent for fear of being convicted by death sentence; and
• it is anti-poor.
Among those arguments, the only item that is linked with religion is the shutting up of rehabilitative justice which is according to the Church encyclical during the late 1980’s called Rerum Navarum which promotes that kind of justice.
International Relations of the Philippines is also as factor because it is also stated in the measure's proponents that the Philippines is already violating international treaties, covenants and policies by "mere implementation" of the death penalty.
Statistically, during the 13th congress, 180 of 230 members of the House of Representatives are Catholics, 23 are Non-Catholic Christians, 12 are Muslims and 15 are not indicated. House Bill No. 4826 was sponsored by Representatives Orlando Fua Jr., Roberto Cajes, Salacnib Baterina, Edcel Lagman, Jesus Crispin Remulla, and party-list Reps. Loretta Ann Rosales, Mario Aguja and Rene Velarde who are all Catholic in Religion. With that situation, Catholics are the most dominant in terms of religion and that can be considered as a main indicator of the decision making process (see Appendix 1).
On the other hand, in the senate proceedings, the main arguments on why death penalty should be abolished are almost the same reasons what the House of Representatives do have. The most prevalent reasons are the failure of deterrence, poor judiciary and its being anti to the poor people.
In the third reading of the Senate Bill regarding death penalty (See Appendix 12), the decision was settled by landslide votes for the abolition of capital punishment. With the 15-0 vote with one abstention by Senator Jingoy Estrada due to his involvement of a capital punishable case, the senate formally approved the bill abolishing death penalty.
In the transcript of the senate proceedings happened from June 1st to 7th of 2006 (See Appendix 13), out of approximately 17000 words that discussed the issue on the death penalty, there are only 332 words in the statements are considered religious in terms of approach. Those statements that manifest religious tone are the following:
“Recent statistics shows that there are only a handful of countries that are still implementing this barbaric means of retributive justice called “the death penalty”. These few include China, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, the U.S. in some states, and our country, the Philippines, that prides itself as the only Christian country in Southeast Asia.” – Aquilino Pimentel Jr.
“And so, Mr. President, we suggest that to continue with the death penalty makes a mockery of our so-called “Christian and civilized tradition” that sanctifies life as a gift of the Almighty Who holds in His hands the absolute power of life and death over His creatures not only because He is All-Knowing, but also because He is All Just.” -- Aquilino Pimentel Jr.
“Death penalties, Mr. President, no longer have any place in a modern, decent Christian society. Let us pass this bill into law and join the ranks of enlightened societies, wise, compassionate, forgiving and Christ-like in dealing with our brothers and sisters.” – Francis Pangilinan
“For the above reasons, Mr. President, I say again, I hesitatingly and haltingly support the abolition of the death penalty, and pray and hope that in some future time, hopefully, sooner than later, our hearts and minds become attentive to the injustice that is perpetrated around us, and at the same time, pay attention that we must also give justice to those who are victimized by the perpetrators of heinous crimes by making sure that they suffer penalties not only in jail but we are sure that they are the same people that perpetrated the offense” – Sergio Osmeña III
“Sa isang bayang Kristiyano na tulad ng Pilipinas, ang patuloy na pag-iral ng parusang kamatayan ay labag sa simulaing nagbibigay halaga sa buhay ng tao. Tanging Diyos lamang at wala ng iba pa ang may karapatan sa buhay ng bawat isa.” – Manuel Villar
“Kung tayo ay nananalig sa kapangyarihan ng Poong Maykapal na baguhin ang puso ng isang nagkasala upang maging karapat-dapat ng tanggapin ng lipunan, huwag nating payagan na bawian ng buhay ang isang nilalang gawa lamang ng isang mabigat na kasalanan.” – Manuel Villar
Out of 17 senators who speak their stand on death penalty, only four (4) senators as mentioned above had included religious perspective in their stand. Those religious statements emphasize the act of forgiveness, God’s goodness and Christian Morality. The other thirteen (13) used pure practical, empirical and statistical perspective like it improbability of deterring crimes. Though only three (3) senators (Pia Cayetano, Flavier and Pangilinan) are Non-Catholic in that roster, the considerable influence of the Catholic Church or even Christianity in that session cannot be claimed in that case (See Appendix 2).
VII. Integration and Conclusion
With that all facts presented and study done, it is a fact that religion is a clear factor on the abolishment of death penalty in the Philippines however, in the question of religion as the main factor of lifting of capital punishment in this country, as of now, it is hard to claim that religion is the main factor because of the following reasons:
First, the stand of religion is inconsistent. Just looking at the Bible, the inconsistency of stand is already evident and even Jesus Christ manifest contradicting stand as seen in John 8:3-11 and Matthew 5:17-19. In beginning of Church history, early Christians killed the heretics and other people who are against the Church and that is contradicting to the teachings of the Church in the present. It is illogical be influenced by something on making a clear stand if the stand of the influencer is unclear.
Second, the Church and the Philippines has common grounds in history of death penalty. They both evolved from the stand of capital punishment as deterrence of committing crimes to capital punishment as an immoral/unethical action and not effective of deterring crimes. With that pattern, it can be concluded that society evolves by itself; even without the existence of religion, the Philippines will still come in to the point of abolishing death penalty. It is said that principle/morality can exist even without religion according to a German Philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche (1866).
Third, most reasons of abolishing death penalty are not exclusively religious. Dominating reasons are: not deterrent to crime, poor justice system in the Philippines, and anti-poor. The three (3) leading reasons mentioned are practical in nature and those can be argued by non-religious people.
Last but not the least, another possible main factor aside from religion is political interest. In an outside look, it seems that the action of Joseph Estrada’s de facto moratorium during Jubilee year and Arroyo’s commutation of death sentences are indicators of the influence of religion in their actions with regarding death penalty. But, looking closely in the situation, those can be questioned why did Estrada lifted the death penalty during the year that is very important to the Church and why did Arroyo commutated death sentences in a day that is also important to the Church. If Estrada and Arroyo are sincere of their actions, they can do that on the different day which is not important to the Church. Another thing, when Arroyo signed the bill against death penalty, a meeting with the Pope came afterwards. Another possibility is that the uses of religious words such as “God” and “Christian Values” on press statements may not be sincere; politicians use those words to get the affirmation of the Church. With those actions, including the legislators, there is a possibility that they just want to please the Church for the sake of political interest. In 2006, the Church is against the people’s initiative that Arroyo is planning to change the constitution. Also, 2006 is a very crucial year for the politicians because of the 2007 elections and that makes it logical to claim that politicians involved in the issue only wants to get the support of the Church for their political interests.
With those four (4) reasons given, it is now clear that the facts presented in this paper are not yet sufficient to prove that religion is the main factor in the decision of abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines.
Bibliography:
Aljazeera. (2006). Philippines moves to ban death penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http:// english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23377.
Amnesty International. (1989). When State Kills… The death penalty v. human rights. London: Amnesty International Publications.
Amnesty International. (1997). PHILIPPINES: THE DEATH PENALTY Criminality, Justice and Human Rights. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.amnesty. org/en/alfresco_asset/3c4ccf0f-c667-11dc-9af1-b1d22f3b300e/asa350091997en.pdf.
Amnesty International USA. (2006). THE PHILIPPINES DEBATES ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/archive/2006 /05/17/1p4ftb6jj3ifl.htm.
Amnesty International. (2007). Death sentences and executions in 2006. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/f26bf9b2-a2a8-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/act5000 42007en.html.
Amnesty International USA. (2007). THE 2006 death penalty statistics. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGACT500122007.
Asian Center for Human Rights. (2003). HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD OF THE PHILIPPINES: SPECTACULAR ON PAPER. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.achrweb .org/reports/philippines/ Philippines-01-03.pdf.
Bakshian, D. (2006). Philippines Abolishes Death Penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-26voa10.cfm?CFID=11295 232&C FTOKEN=66803155.
Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines. (2006). Church lauds abolition of death penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.cbcponline.net/html/news1-june7.html.
Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines. (2006). Church reiterates call for death penalty abolition. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.cbcponline.net/html/news1-apr17.html.
Carrol, J. (2004). WHO SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY?. Gallop Poll. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1266&scid=.
Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. (2007). The Philippine Experience in Abolishing Death Penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.chr.gov.ph/ MAIN%20PAGES/about%20hr/ advisories/pdf_files/abolishing%20death%20penalty.pdf.
Cruz, M. (2006). Death Penalty freeze flayed. Manila Times. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www .yehey.com/news/Article.aspx?id=98724.
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. (2007). Evaluation on the Abolition of Death Penalty Projects. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://ec.europa.eu/ europeaid/where/worldwide/eidhr/documents/eidhr_evaluation_death_penalty_final_report_4april07_en.pdf.
Flores, N. (2006). Anti-crime crusaders want Panganiban’s claim probed SC Echegaray ‘error’. Inquirer. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://services.inquirer.net/print/print .php?article_id=6395.
Fortuna, J. (2006). Sharing Edcel’s Stand on Death Penalty. ABS-CBN News. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=36644.
GMA News. (2006). Barbers wants death penalty reimposed. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http:// www.gmanews.tv/story/24247.
Hinman, J. (2001). Ethics Survey: Death Penalty Report. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from http://ethics.sandiego.edu/ActiveWebSurvey/SurveyReport.asp?nSurvey=19&From=.
House of Representatives of the Philippines. (2006). Press Release on the Abolition of death penalty. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from www.congress.gov.ph.
Javellana-Santos, J. (2006). Philippine Death Penalty Law Is Dead. Arab News. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=83422&d =8&m=6&y=2006&pix =world.jpg&category=World.
Laijas, E. (No Date). Is Capital Punishment Just?. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=36644.
Lamban, S. (No Date). Death Penalty in the Philippines. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www. philsol.nl/A00a/Pahra-deathpenalty-mar00.htm.
Marangay, F., et. al (2006). Anticrime groups slam death penalty reduction. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news04_april17_2006.
Marangay, F., et. al (2006). Repeal of capital punishment next. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http: //www. manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news01_april18_2006.
Mariano, D. (2006). Not all crime victims favor death. Manila Times. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.yehey.com/news/print.aspx?id=99972.
Mergivern, J. (1997). The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press.
Office of the President of the Philippines. (2006). Statement of Secretary Ignacio R. Bunye Re: Commutation of Death Penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.op.gov.ph/news.asp? newsid=14929.
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (No Date). Retrieved April 1, 2008 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/.
Ornellas, L. (2007). Death Penalty Arguments: Pros and Cons. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http:// www.prodeathpenalty.com/OrnellasPaper.htm.
Senate of the Philippines. (2006). Transcripts of Plenary Sessions Regarding Death Penalty.
Taguyana, A. (2004). Capital Punishment in the Philippines. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www. hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/vol5no1.html.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). Why does church oppose death penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/death_penalty1.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). Philippine position of hierarchy. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://ww w.prolife.org.ph/page/death_penalty2.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). The cruelty of death penalty. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www. prolife.org.ph/page/death_penalty7.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). When state kills. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.prolife.org.ph /page/death_penalty6.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). Death Penalty in Practice. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http://www.pro life .org.ph/page/death_penalty5.
Pro-Life Philippines. (2006). Alternative to capital punishment. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from http:// www.prolife.org.ph/page/death_penalty4.
Union of Catholic Asian News. (2006). Philippine Catholic Church continues death penalty repeal push. Retrieved 25 January 2008 from www.ucanews.com.
