How to become rich?

"No one ever got rich working a 9-5".

How to be rich?

1. Resign Job.
2. “Work hard” to eventually come up with a multi-million/billion bussiness.
3. Hire people and prevent them to be “rich” (and “exploit” them).
4. Sometimes, take advantage and deceive their customers/clients.

Though there are some ethical businesspersons/professionals, they are very rare and have a slim chance of being “rich.”

Can we really solve the current societal problems today?

Summing up the issues raised in this country, the main problem is the weak social and economic where the grand design is that high percentage of poverty is inevitable so the rich and powerful stays where they are and further improve their standing. 

Currently, “solving” the “main problem” is far from reality given the kind of attitude of most of the Filipinos where their main priority is only self interest. 

In the practical side, who will give up their current standing in the society just to make a change? 

There may be few individuals who are truly (because most of them are just giving sentiments but not taking action) willing, but the majority will never take an action. 

Unfortunately, few actions will not make any impact. It should be a collective action by at least more than majority, if not everyone.

I am not in the position to said that they are bad persons because it may be considered somehow as self preservation. 

So what’s the current solution to somehow attain a better, if not ideal, society?

In my opinion, no one knows.

Existential Angst and Law Practice

It has been almost four years since I last posted in this blog. I graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, became a paralegal in a midsize and refutable law firm and presently, a partner in a small law office.

Now that I'm already a lawyer, I'm still contemplating why do I want to became a lawyer in the first place. Honestly, I do not like court litigation, drafting of pleadings, preparing contracts and other documents, corporate law practice and other things which they say that "you are not a real lawyer if you don't do these."

Yes I know, most lawyers and aspiring lawyers dream of litigating in court and feel the "prestige" of being a "true and full pledged lawyer." However, I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong about that because it is really their passion. 

After taking the bar, I worked as paralegal in a refutable law firm in Makati. I thought that I would feel very contented and fulfilled by the time I was accepted to work in the law firm. But it's the other way around. Most people tell me that those are the job of a lawyer and it's inevitable. They said that I need to do all those things to became a good lawyer. I need to defend a big corporations and big personalities whether they are doing right or wrong. I call that mainstream lawyering.

People keep on asking me on why did I take up law if I don't like to do those things knowing that most lawyers do those things. I looked for answers why. Suddenly, I realized that I love the laws. I love how it works. I love studying the laws. But in practice, the law don't work as it supposed to work in theory. Theoretically the law is beautiful but in real life, it is not that simple. 

The main problem is that I do not feel any fulfillment in doing those things. I'm not the type of person who finds joy and excitement every time I go to court and make a good pleading for the regular courts. I'm not even excited to work for big time clients. 

I realized that it's not my goal to be that "true and full pledged lawyer." I decided to resign and tendered my resignation. That was the longest 30 days of my life. But I'm very happy that my former boss understood my insights and told me that the law has many areas and what that law firm practices is just a small area which most law firms in Makati practice.

The world of law practice is a very big world to explore. There are parts of it that only few had discovered. It just so happened that many lawyers decided to be safe and stayed where many lawyers are -  the mainstream lawyering.  

There is nothing wrong to be in the mainstream because it's the safest and the most stable area of law practice. However, I decided to leave the mainstream to explore and start new adventure.

I wen't back to my former employer and became a partner of that small law firm practicing maritime labor law that helps seafarers to get their disability claims for a reasonable terms. That gives me more flexibility and opportunity to explore more possibilities. Unlike in my former job, I can leave the office way more earlier and with that, I can do many things most lawyers can't do because they are stocked at work. I have time to help my friends who are taking the bar this year by preparing tips and sometime, personally explain the subjects they want to clarify. I can hang out with my friends without any hassle of any work related reasons. I can even handle small time cases which most lawyers under the employment of law firms can't because of work restraint.

However, my adventure does not end here, I'm also considering to be a member of the academe by teaching or if there's an opportunity, to have further my further studies abroad not necessarily law related.

We all know that the world is not perfect. If the world is perfect, lawyers are not necessary to exist. I challenge my fellow lawyers that together, we will do our best to contribute in making the world, if not perfect, a better place to live.

Something to think about

It's been a while after my last entry.

My life has changed a lot - from a complex life to a more complex one. All I want is just a simple life but I really do not know why life is getting more complicated. Maybe, a simple life does not really exist; it is just a ideal fantasy of most people. Everyday, I never stop thinking. I never stop hypothesizing. I never stop wondering. I never stop worrying. No more peace of mind on my part. Now, it is only one month before the final exams. I don't have any idea.

Kahit ngayon, hindi pa rin nawawala sa isip ko na swerte lang kung bakit ko naipasa ang mga subjects ko noong 1st year. Hindi naman talaga ako magaling. Swerte lang talaga. Mauubos din ang swerte ko. Nararamdaman ko na.

I lost all the confidence. I starting to lose hope.

Kung swerte man yun, masasabi ko din na malas din ang nangyari sapagkat kung 'di man ako para sa pag-aaral ng law, sana hindi na lang pinatagal.

One big question is: It is a choice or destiny?

Honestly, I do not know the answer. Nauubusan na ako ng mga sagot.

I'm just hoping that none of my theories are correct.

The only reason for me to keep holding on is the support. The support of my friends. Thank you Superfriends for all your support. I really appreciate those.

Famous lines from Squall Leonhart

During the Dollet mission
Squall: I stand by the captain's decision.
Seifer: ... Captain's decision? You want to wreak some havoc too, don't you?
Squall: It's a good opportunity to test my training. Thanks to you, I feel like I can take on anyone. Even if they do fight dirty, like you.

In the "secret spot", discussing Quistis's demotion
Squall: Are you done yet...? I don't wanna talk about it. What am I supposed to say about other people's problems?
Quistis: I'm not asking you to say anything. I just want you to listen.
Squall: Then go talk to a wall.

Following the first Laguna vision
Selphie: What a relief! Everything's cool with me! Hee! I had such a nice dream!
Squall: (I had a dream, too. It wasn't nice though... I dreamt I was a moron...)

Talking to Rinoa about wishes
Squall: (Think what you want... Reality isn't so kind. Everything doesn't work out the way you want it to. That's why...) As long as you don't get your hopes up, you can take anything... You feel less pain. Anyway, whatever wish you have is none of my business.


Thinking about Seifer, believing he has been executed
Squall: (I liked him... wasn't really a bad guy... He was one of us... Seifer... You've just become just a memory. Will they... Will they talk about me this way if I die, too? Squall was this and that. Using past tense, saying whatever they want? So this is what death is all about... Not for me. I won't have it!!!) ... I'm not having anyone talk about me in the past tense!

Before the sorceress assassination mission
Squall: (Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views.)

Following Irvine's blocked shot at Edea
Irvine: ... I'm sorry.
Squall: It's ok. Your aim was perfect. Just leave the rest up to me. I'm goin' in for the sorceress. Irvine, Rinoa, just be ready to back me up. Take care of Rinoa.

During Seifer's interrogation concerning the real purpose of SeeD
Squall: SeeD... (... A code name for Balamb Garden's elite mercenary force... SeeD... Combat specialists......???) ...Don't you already know?
Seifer: I'm not a SeeD. There must be some kind of secret you're given when you become a SeeD!
Squall: There's nothing. Even if there were, you think I'd tell you?
Seifer: You're on my 'tough-nut-to-crack' list. Didn't think you'd talk that easily.
Squall: ... Geez, I'm honored.


Trying to figure out how to save Balamb Garden from missiles
Squall: Sir, I'd like to handle whatever it is that you're planning.
Headmaster Cid: And why is that?
Squall: (... I don't know... Because you might screw up... Because I want to do more than announce the evacuation. Because this place is important to me, too. Because I want to find out your plan. Because this is my home. I have too many reasons. I don't know why... Who cares?) My feelings have nothing to do with it, sir.
Headmaster Cid: Heh heh, Quistis was right. You do have a hard time expressing your feelings.
Squall: (Why bother. And what is this? Why am I being judged?) Sir! Please tell us your plan!

Following the battle with NORG
Squall: Forget about it for now.
Rinoa: I can't believe you said that. I think what just happened is really serious.
Squall: What's the point of talking about it now!? You don't know what's going on, either! This is crazy. I don't know what's goin' on anymore. I feel like a helpless puppet being manipulated in some major scheme.
Immediately after Ellone is taken by the White SeeD
Squall: (Why do people depend on each other? In the end, you're on your own. I've made it this far by myself. Sure, I couldn't do a thing when I was a kid... I've depended on others, but... I'll be the first one to admit that I'm here because of other people. I'm fine by myself now. I have all the skills I need to survive. I'm not a child anymore. That's a lie. I don't know anything. I'm confused. I don't want to depend on anyone. How can I do that? Someone tell me... Someone? So I'll end up depending on others after all.

Speaking to Mayor Dobe and his wife Flo in Fisherman's Horizon
Flo: We believe that any problem can be settled by discussion. If you reach a mutual understanding there is no need to fight.
Squall: (No argument there. Trite, and dull as hell, though.)

Trying to console Selphie about the loss of the Spring Festival
Squall: (Man, she's really down.) Come on. I'm sure you can still do something.
Selphie: ... Squall... being sensitive? That's weird. You're the last person I expected to cheer me up. I must really look depressed.
Squall: (What's so weird? I care just like everybody else. It's just that there are too many things that can't be helped. So why bother talking about everything.)
Selphie: Uh-oh! There you go again into your own little world. And you're not gonna share anything, huh?
Squall: ... Yeah, whatever... (Why is she teasing me? I was just trying to help.)

While reminiscing about time spent in the orphanage as children
Squall: I was always waiting for 'Sis' to come back.
Young Squall: I'm... all alone. But I'm doing my best... I'll be ok without you, Sis. I'll be able to take care of myself.
Squall: (... I didn't turn out ok at all.)

In Trabia, discussing what must be done next
Squall: I guess that's it... We're fighting.
Rinoa: ... You guys are fearless.
Squall: (Fearless? I don't think that's quite right. If you think too hard, you become lost... I think that's what everyone's afraid of...) I wish we didn't have to fight, either.

Speaking to everyone during the battle with Galbadia Garden
Squall: ...... Everybody. This is Squall. How's everyone doing? You're all probably too tired to even stand up after all the fighting. But I want everyone to listen to me... We still have a chance to win, and I need your help. This is going to be our final battle. We're going to attack them before they come in again. To do that, we're going to head straight into their Garden. So I want everyone to prepare for a major collision. Take care of all the junior classmen. Irvine, Quistis, Zell, and Selphie will lead the attack into their Garden. As for everyone else, please support them if you can. SeeD was formed to fight the sorceress; at least, that's what I heard. And Garden was created to train SeeDs. So this battle is Garden's destiny and also our destiny. It's a grueling battle, and I'm sure you guys are all exhausted. But I don't want to have any regrets. I don't want anyone to look back and regret this day. So just this once, I want you guys to give everything you've got! For yourselves and for me!

While walking with comatose Rinoa from Fisherman's Horizon
Squall: (I wonder what everyone's doing...? They're probably laughing at me. Or maybe they're angry...?) What do you think? To tell you the truth... I worry too much about what others think of me. I hate that side of me... That's why I didn't want anyone to get to know me. I wanted to hide that side of myself. I hate it. Squall is an unfriendly, introverted guy. It made it easy for me when people perceived me that way. That's a secret between you and me. Got that?

can't think of anything

My mind is empty.
My heart is empty.

Things are getting vague.
Darkness construes.

I can't think.
I don't believe.

Uncertainty and illusion conspire.
Confusion litigates.

Too much ideas.
Energy is lacking.

Everything is absurd.
I need to discover the proper direction.

What do angels dream of?

A Scene from Crisis Core:

Angeal: I've become...a monster. A monster's objective is usually world domination or revenge.

Zack: You're wrong. Those aren't the wings of a monster.

Angeal: Well then, what are they?

Zack: Angel's wings.

Angeal: I see. Then what should an angel fight for, Zack? What do angels dream of?

Zack: Angeal...

Angeal: Angeals dream of one thing...

Zack: Please, tell me.

Angeal: To be human.

Calling

Calling

Vocals: Leah
Lyrics: SAWA
Composition: Ishimoto Takeharu
Arrangement: Ishimoto Takeharu

Calling
You hear the
Calling

Let me go
Gravity
What’s on my shoulder?
“Little by little, I feel a bit better”

Let me know
Set me free
I feel a bit older
Just once more unto the breach
“Dear friend, once more”

Wake up
Leave your hesitation
Wake up
Time for us to realize
Wake up
Show appreciation
Wake up
Time for us to realize

Calling
Someone is
Calling

Wait and see
Empathy
You’re not the only one
“Little by little you’ll feel a bit better”

Lucky me
Destiny
You are on my side
Just once more unto the breach
“Dear friend, once more”

Reasoning...

What is the reason why am I doing these things?

None. I don't need a reason. I know what to do.

The world is too big to find the reason of its existence. We are just a small part of this big world.

Legal Philosophy: Should laws be made or found?

There are two conventional kinds of law: the natural law and the statutory law. Natural law, obviously, should be found because the nature mandates that law and not the human race. It is alleged to be the “Law of God” or divine law. The statutory law is the laws that are enacted by the legislative branch of the government and, obviously, it is made. It can be declaring, commanding or prohibiting something. Aside from the two conventional types of law, there is what we call the common law or case law. The common law is usually not written in codes such as the Civil Code and Revised Penal Code. It usually came from the customs and traditions of the people. The case laws (e.g. David vs. Arroyo) are those cases that are resolved by the Supreme Court. The doctrines from the cases resolved become part of the law of the land. That also resolves the ambiguous words of the statutes.

Many legal philosophers focused on the Division of Classes (Greek), Social Contract (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau), General Will (Kant), and Division of Powers (Montesquieu). Those legal structures are based on the societal situations of their respective eras. They found solutions on the problems of their respective societies then made, construct and proposed theories.

Many of the statutory laws are derived from natural laws. It is natural in all cultures that killing people is not proper therefore the laws on crimes against person are made. Natural law is the basis of the statutory law and natural law should be found. Therefore laws should be both found and made. The cycle does not end there. Case laws are still on way that finds ambiguity on the made statutory laws and clarify them. Therefore, even if the law is already made, we should still find some solutions to the legal problem. One example is the voting system of Philippine congress on the constitutional convention. Section 3 Article XVII of the 1987 constitution reads:

“The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

It is clearly written that the Congress’ 2/3 vote is needed but let us bear in mind that we have two houses of congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The constitution did not provide if they will vote jointly or separately. If they vote jointly, the Senate will be outnumbered by the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court should resolve that legal issue even if it is already written and made.

END and CHANGE.

There are only two entities that neither CHANGE nor END and those two are the ideas of CHANGE and END.

END does not CHANGE nor END.

CHANGE does not END nor CHANGE.

Everything CHANGES and ENDS.

Life CHANGES and ENDS.

Love CHANGES and ENDS.

Friendship CHANGES and ENDS.

A period, a condition or an era CHANGES and ENDS.

But an END or CHANGE of something means a new start of something else. The overlapping of END and the new start which is supposed to be ended by the former is very difficult. It is called hang over and the failure of moving on. The new start will not be efficient if the supposed END is not yet ended. I experienced many overlapping wherein I surpassed many but trying to work on others. It's really difficult because of the many past attachments that is a vast unnecessary baggage.

The best way to do which I'm thinking about for the last few months is to accept the END and embrace the new start. Refrain from overlapping because CHANGE is inevitable which is out of our control.

The Philosophy of False Hope and Idealism

False hope is defined as prestation promised to be true or circumstance assured to be a fact in the future which is caused by person's luck dependent minds that strongly believes in certainty of a very uncertain future event.

False idealism is defined as the state of absolute perfection and and denies relativity and failure.

A lot of people is depending on this what we call the false hope because this gives them courage to positively go on in their lives. People who believe in the certainty of the uncertain have ideals plans in life, knowingly impossible, still continue to hope but most often they fail. The idea of a Plan B is mostly not considered by them because of their idealism (or we can also say, false idealism). Unplanned Plan B always lead to the doom of a person's life and recovery is very hard.

Even though that there are a lot of ways achieving or consummating a plan or dream, people who adheres false idealism don't know considers those other ways because at the first place, they don't even know that there are other ways. The darkness of idealism devoured their creative minds that results to linear thinking.

Not all events in our lives are result of our efforts. There are events that are simply impossible to happen no matter how much effort we exert because their are other great factors like intellectual capacity, physical appearance, or even special skills or talent which is inherent to a person. All persons are unique and gifted with one or more of those mentioned but if a person is not gifted by a certain characteristics and that is a requisite on what dreams he/she whats to consummate, there is really a big problem. No matter how much effort one exert, if his/her inherent characteristics and plans are not compatible, most probably, that person shall fail.

The first thing to do is not to know what we want in the present (wants changes as times goes by), but to know what is our inherent talents or skills (it is really hard to do and it really takes time). After successfully doing so, that is the time to contemplate about knowing your self. Think about the plans which are compatible with your inherent capabilities and surely, success is just an inch away from your position.

Not all hopes are will happen and not all dreams are ideal. It may be ideal to the majority (majority who adheres to false idealism), but you are certain that what you are pursuing is not impossible and purely achievable.

The Paradox Between Political Science and Law

If we will have to analyze the function of a lawyer (prosecutor, defense counsel or magistrate as the case may be) and a political scientist (political analyst or politician as the case may be), we can see a very different points of view on the issues. A political scientist's function is to plan and create laws and policy to promote the welfare of the society while a lawyer does his best to promote justice by proper application of the law.

In the issue of criminal justice (in general) in the Philippines:

A political scientist would say that the Revised Penal Code (which is made in the 1930's) should be amended because first of all, there are many loopholes in our penal system; the penalties of distiero and civil interdiction is so obsolete and in fact, the penalty of interdiction in the Spanish penal law (where our revised penal code was patterned) is already repealed. That law is really outdated. Another thing is the name of the penalties! What the hell is that reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal etc? Those terms should be changed into ordinary terms that ordary people would understand.

In the lawyer's point of view, no matter how obsolete those laws are, there are still the law. the only job of a lawyer to follow them how illogical they are. If you want change, it is the job of the congress to change it. But however, those people in Sentate and House of Representatives are just making themselves popular and not making important laws that our countries need. The lawyers cannot do something about the change in law becasue that's beyond their job.

In the issue of the senate investigation on Bolante, Lozada, et al:

A political scientist (most but not all) would say that the senate is doing a good job of knowing the truth. They are doing something good for the benefit of our nation. Those ombudsmen are very slow in doing those investigation that's why Senate can be a good forum for it.

In that issue, a lawyer would argue that those senators are just abusing there powers. Yes, they have the constitutional power to investigate but it is for the aid of legislation. Where's the legislation anyway? After the investigation of Lozada, did they do any legislation? Those people in congress are just doing it for the aid of there election. They (senate) are already accusing their witness (Bolante) guilty without the final judgement of a judge. If fact, there is a ground that the detention of Bolante is abitrary which is punishable by Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code.

In the issue of the Alabang Boys:

A lawyer would comment on the issue on this manner: The prosecutors shouln't prejudged in the alleged bribery. The case is dissmised by the DOJ is the grounds that the buy-bust is void because o improper procedures. In criminal procedure, if the buy-bust operation is not properly done, the case shall be dismissed by the prosecutor. The media men even agravates the issue by not knowing the law first before reporting on the national television. If we will review the reports of the media, it seems that the prosecutor is one doing wrong because all they know to to expose issues and often not thinking if they reports is proper or not.

A political scientist would say that it is clear that criminal justice here in the Philippines is just for the rich. If a poor (who doesn't have money to pay lawyer and don't know his rights are) is illeglly arrested, he will still go to jail for sure.

In the issue of presedential pardon:

(There is a case that there are military men who were convicted in final judgement but pardoned by the president after one day of conviction.)

A political scientist would comment that it is so unjust to pardon those people. Where's the justice in that case?

A lawyer would say that it's the prerogative of president and no one can question it. Lawyers do not protect the president herself, but rather just protecting the president's constitutional power.

Disclaimer: Not all lawyers and political scientist would argue what is written above. Those are just some of my thoughts as a graduate of political science and a student of law with some insights of my proffesors in both fields.

Being a law student is really a major shift of point of view from the field of political science. But in a way, I can say that it isa also an advantage because I'm exposed in the different sides of the issues.

Now, it's up to us if what will be our opinion and how we will think regarding on those issues.

Different Circles

The human society is made up of so many circles which can be permanent or temporary. In my experience, most of the circles are just mere temporary and only few remains permanent. In some cases, there are individuals who are trying to enter a circle even though it's obvious that they are out; in other words, "losers." Sometimes, there are instances (which is inevitable) that certain individuals are kicked-out of the circle for obvious or sometimes poetic reason. If we will have to wiegh, the latter is more painful than the former. One of the most famous remedy of the latter is go back to his/her former circle that he/she already abandoned. In the case of the former, I cannot think of any remedy based from experience because it seems that no circle accepted him/her or he/she don't like to be part of the other circle saving the circle he/she really wanted to be belonged. It's really unfortunate but that's reality. All dreams are not destined to be met. Losers will always be losers if they don't make a major change and realization in their life. Past is past while present is present but (the most important) past will never be present.

An Essay on Philosophy of Person

What is to be a person? For me a being is a person if s/he is exists. How do we know that a person exists? For me, a person exists not only because of the existence of his/her body but also the existence of the man’s true self or identity (or being authentic), and also knows what his/her potentials/opportunities (apply/use it) and limitations (be aware/accept it) as a person (that gives way to freedom) including what is the person made of and the most important, to be a subject and to be free.
The Body and the Soul
The article about the Experience of My Body and the Body as an Intermediary said a crucial point that the spirit is embedded to our body; and in that point counts as one way to determine what a person made of. We should know the relationship between our body and spirit in order to understand what a person really is. Others said that our material body is just a shadow of our real selves which is they called spirit/soul. But, where did that soul came from? What is that soul? Can anyone prove empirically that spirit really exists separate from our body? The answer is I don’t know. The article said that soul and body works together and without body, soul is nothing. Yes, a person is nothing without a body because s/he cannot do what he wants, s/he cannot talk, cannot express his/her love to others, or maybe s/he cannot think. Cannot think? Who does the thinking process? Is it the body or the soul? A body has a brain that does the thinking process. The brain sends message to all parts of the body to do an action and also it interprets what the five senses had sensed. The brain also stores memory and in-charge on our emotions like love, anger or others care of the hypothalamus. So if the brain is doing that, so what is now the role of soul? Is it possible that the soul does what the brain’s doing like storing of memory, thinking and others? Are the psychologists sure that the brain does it? How can we determine that the brain is thinking? How can we prove that soul really exists? How about the person who has mental disorders? Where is their soul? Are they still aware of their identity? I don’t know. The only thing I know is just one of them is true that either the brain or the soul is the one in-charge in our thinking process and memory. No one is certain about that like what in the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Ross; the defense lawyer said that it is possible that Emily Ross is really possessed by a demon but it is equally possible the she has only a psychological disorder. If the brain does it, that means that if a person dies, the soul is nothing but an empty and absurd object because the identity is stored in the brain. But it is also possible that the body is just a puppet of the soul and if a person dies, the identity of the person still exist in the soul. So, in the statements, “I am my body” and “I have a body,” I think that only one of them is the reality but no one is certain about it. I think that crucial point is still unanswerable for this moment but there is a possibility that one day, the real answer on that matter will arrive but let us also don’t remove the possibility that this issue will not be resolved forever and just accept the incompleteness of knowledge about what really a person is made of.
Authenticity and Relationship
The next issue is about the authenticity of the person. Martin Bubber’s exposition of an I-Thou relationship helpful to encourage people to be authentic. As I mentioned a while ago, one way to be considered existing is to be authentic. The I-Thou opposed to the I-it relationship where only one party considers him/herself a subject and treats other as an object. This relationship hinders the freedom or the other party treated as object. Freedom also one important aspects of existence as also mention a while ago. If one does not let others free, that person who treats others as object may be also treated as object by the others because of his/her inconsideration. And that inconsideration may be threat to his/her freedom. Example, a guy considers her girlfriend as object. In that case, the guy’s command to his girlfriend should be obeyed and or else, you know what will happen next. The girl may rebel against his boyfriend and can also do blackmail against the guy for example, splitting-up. That blackmail is already a threat to the guy’s freedom. That is what may happen in an I-it relationship. They should allow each other to be their selves and respect each others beliefs. There should be a dialogue not a monologue. Another point the Buber tells about being our own selves to everyone and in Filipino context, “plastic”. I think that a person’s identity is confusing if that man has different personalities to each person he knows. Those persons who are “plastic” and hypocrite are not trustworthy. An example would be, if a guy appears to be a Tapat (a DLSU political Party) supporter on a Tapat supporter friend and a Santugon (Rival of Tapat) supporter to a friend just to please or not to hurt the feelings of both of them. Then it happens to be that the Tapat person and the Santugon person are best friends but the guy doesn’t know about that. So if the best friends talked about who the guy supports, there will be misunderstanding on all of them three which can be a threat on their friendship. But, if the guy told the truth, I think, quarrel will be evaded and if the friend becomes angry to the guy for not supporting the party, I think that that friend is not a real friend for not respecting one’s belief. We should accept and consider the reality on ones identity no matter what painful it and we are lucky for knowing that truth because at least, we know the real identity of the person than the other and truth always sets us free. That is the importance of authenticity towards freedom that is one factor for the existence of a person.
Absurdity and Meaningfulness of Life
Now, the next point is the idea of Albert Camus about the absurdity of life which is one of person’s limitations. That point is very important for us because knowing what really life is will give us more freedom. The point said that life has no meaning at all and we must accept the reality that it is it. Many people are attempting the real and absolute meaning of life but I think those people are just wasting their time of doing so. The most common answer to the question of the people of what’s the meaning of life especially the Christians is our life should be offered to God. I think that those people are just fooling themselves telling that they are depending on God and that depending to a God is what Camus called a philosophical suicide. That other people who depend to a God is just escaping from the reality and finding out some sort of security by creating to their minds a being not present in the material world. Just like one philosopher named Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche told “Live Dangerously,” we should accept the reality that we cannot do anything beyond the present reality can offer. Camus also said that life is incomplete that’s why it’s absurd. But, it is not advisable to commit suicide knowing that life is absurd; that act is also a form of escape from the reality. We should just accept life as absurd. We should not hope for miracles or anything that is more likely impossible to happen in our situation. “Less hope less pain.” OK, miracles may happen but we are not certain of that. We must expect for the worse and if it happens to be that miracle occurred, I think that’s more advantageous for us not expecting for it rather than expecting for it but it didn’t happened at all. We should just depend on whom/what we are sure to be existing like family/friends, money and others. Thou that absurdity of life is a limitation for us, a person should also know what is his/her potentials/opportunities and one of those is the point of Viktor Frankl about the ability of the person to give his/her own meaning of life. That meaning of life is highly subjective and it cannot be determined/studied by psychologist, social scientists, theologians or even philosophers because there is no such thing as absolute meaning of life. We could be considered as object if conform for being determined. We ourselves are only one can determine what’s the meaning of life. That meaning of life we made will motivate us on pursuing our plan/dreams in life. Camus is correct that life is absurd but we have the freedom to put meaning of it. If we conform to the meaning of life psychologists or theologians give, I think that our freedom is violated in that sense. As a mention a whole ago, one factor of existence is to be free. We should realize/be aware of the range our freedom. We are free to make meaning of our life and we are also free not to give meaning on it. We are free and there is nothing wrong if we want our life to be meaningful/worthwhile or not as long as those don’t interfere others freedom which is the limitation of our freedom.
History and Freedom
The next point about our potential/opportunity is the point of the article of Historicity that our future is not determined by something like fate and will of God. All things that already happened in the past is unchangeable and if there is a bad thing that happened to us is also because of us or other people but not God or Fate. I think it is just an excuse if we that “it has to be” we failed an exam. But if it happened that we studied better before the exam or we got a better luck maybe, we passed that exam. Another one, when a couple had a break-up, the girl may probably said that “we had a break-up because God has a better girl for me” which is very illogical. It is right to say that the cause of the break-up is either the guy doesn’t like the girl anymore or there is a problem in their relationship. I think the girl only tell that reason about God’s will because maybe she can’t accept the reality the guy really don’t like her anymore. Now, enough with that Fate or God thing and let us go on the potential/opportunity what can historicity brings us. We have the freedom of on our future because we are the one deciding for our future and we should take advantage of it. We should improve/change what’s wrong in our society. We should use our own freedom and not rely on God/Fate because if we just rely on that, no improvement might happen. But there’s a limitation on this that we must aware of which is we cannot improve/change what is not existing in short, nothing comes from nothing. We can improve our technology like cars and cell phones because they exist already, but we cannot teleport on one place to another for now, because we don’t have idea of how it will work. But it may be possible because we may focus on that already because we have our technology and commercial establishments. Those things can help because it saves time. We can now focus on other things instead of farming and walking because we have already our supermarkets and automobiles. We should take advantage of our potentials in order to improve and make a better world.
Death and Afterlife
Another limitation that a person has is Death. Many of us are afraid of it but we should accept it and prepare for it in order not to be unpeaceful if we die. Though no one knows if there is an after life or none, there is a way for are essence to exist without our material body after we die and that is to live life with others. If we die in that way, our family and friends will remember our essence because we been part of their reality. Though death is said to be a “big joker of life” wherein we may die with our task in this world remained unfinished, those loved ones we left may continue what we had started. But if we choose to live in isolation, if we die, are essence will also be perished and our task will be unfinished forever. But there is nothing wrong with that because it’s our choice as long as we can take its consequences. Persons living in isolation may be lucky if it happens that there is an afterlife because we will not absolutely vanish in the case. A death maybe is a test of love because you still love that person whom we don’t know if s/he is still existing or not, don’t know if that person who dies still remember us. Remember, no one is certain if what will happen to us after death. There is a possibility that our awareness of our identity also vanished together with our dead body. It is also a possibility that our soul reincarnate to a new identity as Plato and Hindus believe and what will happen is our past identity will be forgotten already. But the best possibility for us is what the linear point of view like Christians believe that we have a spirit that has an eternal life after death. In that case, our identity and freedom remains. Thou, Camus proposed that we should expect for the worst but, it is still up to us of what to expect however, remember that it’s our choice and we have no right to blame other being or something if things goes terrible. In the statement that death is a statement of freedom, I think that no one is certain about that because as I said earlier that no one is certain about our situation about death. How can we be free if we don’t exist anymore after death? But if it happens the Christians are correct, there would be no problem about our freedom.
The Absolute Thou or God
The last point I know which is also important is the point about the absolute thou. It is an important point because we can’t deny that most people incorporate that absolute thou in their lives and rely on Him. I think it is already predictable of what is my stand about it based on what I had said earlier - that is the agnostics stand wherein no is certain if that absolute thou or others called God really exists. I admit that I’m one of those Agnostic people that does not stand for neither God exists nor not. The question is where do we get their strength of moving on of our desperate life if it happens to be that our friends and family is on anymore present on our side? Is that God or absolute thou enters to our life or it is just a psychological ability of a person to move on? Both of them are possible, right? Again, I will mention Camus proposal that we must only rely on what we are certain. But, what if God really exist? Blaise Pascal, a mathematician, theologian, and a philosopher said that to believe in God is a bet. He said that when a man happens to believe in God and it also happen that he when he died, he saw that there is no absolute thou existing. What will happen to that man who lived a life of morality and followed God’s will? Nothing will happen, right? But what if he doesn’t believe that God exist and he did all the sins and crimes then it happened to be that God really exists. What will happen to that man? I think that that man is in big trouble because he will be sanctioned according to the divine law. In short, Pascal is trying to tell us that it is safer to live as if God exist than live in a Non-Godly way. Even though I’m an agnostic, I should choose the way how I will live and that’s to live as if God exist for the reason that I will loose nothing if I do moral acts and not doing immoral acts which is according to God’s will. I’m not proposing that all of us should do so. It is still up to us if we take the risk of not believing or live safely by believing because we are free. There is nothing wrong if what you want choose of the two as long as we intervene on others freedom because remember that we are not alone in this world and we must consider others as well. Example, if we choose to live as if God does not exist, it means that we can do any crime we want like to kill or to rape. But, others have the freedom to live/survive and to be virgin. We should consider those freedoms before doing something wrong. So if that’s the case, we might think that the only thing we can do is what is not evil. If we are thinking in that way, we are wrong about that. We can commit suicide without violating others freedom, right?
Summary and Conclusion
Now as you have noticed, my philosophy of the person focused on options and uncertainty. As I mentioned on the first paragraph, to be a person is to exist and to exist to be a subject and be free. I also mentioned about the limitations to be aware of and accepted and those are the absurdity of life, death, and the consideration that others also exist. On the other hand, I also mention our potentials and opportunities which to be used/applied and take advantaged and those are the person’s ability to give meaning to life and the ability to make our own history/to improve and change the world if necessary. I also mentioned of being authentic in terms relationships with others that gives way to freedom and subjectivity. About on what is a person are made of, I think that we should still work on it. And lastly, the issue about the absolute self will help us decide of what kind life we should live. We should live life on our own ways and not what is prescribed by other people. We are given options to help us decide and if there are no options present, I think that is a threat against our freedom. There is no absolute way on how to live life. We make/control our life. We are the scriptwriter of our life! And in that control subjectivity of life enters. If there is only one way/ there is an ideal way of living life, I think it is a stereotype and that stereotypic way of life has no difference in an objective way of life which is obviously against the subjectivity of the person.
I believe that in order to recognize our true selves is to know what is possible and not what the fact is. I believe that facts lessen our freedom because a facts change as times goes by but possibilities don’t. For me, we should be doubtful of what is fact because it the way for us to give birth little by little of the answer to the mystery of what is really being a person. For me, philosophy of the person is a continuous search and I don’t know when this search will come into and end.

God and Atheism

Atheist philosophy plays a big role on the study and analyzing religion particularly the existence and dependence of human kind on a higher being called God. Though the ideas of those atheists contradict theists belief on the way we look on God and religion, we can not deny that those kinds of philosophy have valid points that we can consider to reflect on. We should be open minded before we totally reject their ideas without studying and analyzing first their ideas because we have no right to reject ideas which we do not have the knowledge of it. Some of the known atheists are Ludwig Feuerbach which known for his idea of anthromorphism, Friedrich Nietzsche and his Ubermensch, Karl Marx and Marxism, Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism, and Albert Camus and the absurd. I will try to discuss their points one by one and I will give my analysis for those points.

The first philosopher that I will discuss is Ludwig Feuerbach. According to him on his book “The Essence of Christianity,” men have different perceptions and definitions about God. It is the case because men are not born perfect and they are projecting in their minds a being which they could depend on. Being that can fill the inadequacy of their ability and possessions. Being that can make them feel perfect because of the belief that that being is helping and doing ways to solve some sort of troubles in their lives. And that being he is trying to say is God. An example would be, a bar examinee who is not that intelligent who will take the bar exam, to fill up his weakness, we will ask for God’s help to give him the right intelligence to pass the bar exam instead of trying to pass the exam on his own abilities. Another is a girl who needs comfort because her boyfriend left him. She would seek comfort by praying to God to make her feel better because of that weakness of not feeling well in that certain situation. That situation is what he call athromorphism will men project on their mind a being which is a perfect version of their own. Feuerbach has a conclusion of theology is only anthropology because the attributes of God that men are trying to project is just a mere idealized version of man. If in the Bible it is said the God created man in his own image and likeness, Feuerbach would say that man created God on his perfected version. Those points of Feuerbach really make sense because I realize that God should not be a pain killer and crutch to the inadequacy and compensation to human limitations.

The next philosopher is Karl Marx which is obviously the main proponent of Marxism. Marxism explains about the exploitation of the ruled class by the ruling class and one main weapon of the ruling class to rationalize their exploitation is religion. He said the religion is the opium of the masses. Because of religion, the workers let the capitalists exploit them because of the belief that there would be a reward from God afterlife if they experience suffering on earth. They work willingly without complains because of that belief. In the Philippines, it started when the Spaniards came here and introduced Christianity and that’s the start of exploitation using religion as weapon. And it is still the case in the Philippines in the present. As we see, Filipinos are very religious and just accept the exploitations of the capitalists. They don’t fight for their rights like not receiving enough wages because of the belief of getting a reward from heaven due to the suffering in earth. I think that the masses should open our minds on that they are already being exploited without knowing it and they should not allow the capitalist to exploit them in that way. They should rethink if God really gives reward on the sufferings and allow the capitalist to exploit them. I think that if he is really a God, He will not allow this kind of exploitation and that belief of religion having a reward on the suffering and allowing the capitalist to exploit the workers is very illogical and stupid.

The next would be Friedrich Nietzsche who is famous in his line “God is dead.” God had died in Nietzsche’s world and He did not claim the responsibility for the killing, but he was enthusiastic about celebrating the wake. The Modern world was also inhospitable to heroes, the half-gods, and godlike men who might redeem life through their greatness. For him, the bane of modern life was just a denial of the heroic, the denial of all greatness, the deprecation of all striving. His purpose was to instill a passion of greatness in a world without God. There is a problem on morality if religion or God not exist but Nietzsche has a solution for that. He said that there are two kinds of morality: The master morality and the slave morality. Slave morality is the kind of morality that many people has. Morality on that manner is driven by rewards and punishments. Many people are just doing good acts and avoiding bad acts because of the rewards and sanctions they would get in doing so. It is like when a man is doing the the Ten Commandments say because it is written and it is the law. If there is no law particularly the divine law, those people who practice slave morality would do evil things as they do because there is no one who is looking at them. An example would be when a girl saw a chocolate on the refrigerator and she knows that that chocolate is not hers she still eats the chocolate because she don’t know who is the owner of that chocolate. But when her sister came and looks for the chocolate in the refrigerator, she asked if who eat her chocolate. The girl replied that she eats the chocolate because she doesn’t know if who is the owner of the chocolate at that time and she also don’t know that her sister owns it. In that particular case, we should consider even without rules or people who is looking for us, we should still do the right thing. We should have a self honesty. Another example is when you are next in line in the ATM then the person withdrawing money at your front is finished. When you see the machine, you saw the machine is saying that “Do you want another transaction?” not yet inserting your card. That means, you could withdraw the money of the person in front of you earlier that easy. What would you do? Withdraw the money because no one will know that that thing happened or just push the button “No” because you know what is right to do even though no one can notice that you will be doing such crime. As Nietzsche said, we should have self-honesty and not be practicing slave morality. According to Nietzsche, to be a “superman/ubermecsh,” a person should Transvaluate the values and practices the master morality wherein man should act reasonably regardless of rules, rewards and punishments. We should do the right thing because it is right and not because of the rewards we could receive from God.

Jean Paul Sartre will be next in line with his existentialist philosophy. Existentialism promotes authenticity and the main opposite of authenticity is conformity. Conformity, as existentialists say, is the lost of identity because you are doing things because you want it to do but you are doing things because you like to be accepted by the society by doing what society said you to do. I believe that I should not be dictated by society but rather, I and only myself should dictate myself on what should I do and I hope to other person it applies. In conformity and lost of principle, I believe that the sense of responsibility of a person deteriorates because in conforming, the person tend to blame society or his family if why he is doing those particular things. Example would be when I guy is a two timer and it also happened that his father adulterates in the knowledge of the guy. The tendency of the guy is to blame his father’s adultery to rationalize his action of two timing. I think that the guy has no right to blame his father because it is the guy’s choice to have a two time relationship and his father’s choice. I believe that the guy’s action is irrational if he blame his father for it. The two beings has there own separate lives and dictating his son or conforming on his father is an irrational decision. I don’t say that we cannot imitate. The guy may imitate his father as long as it is own choice and he will take the responsibility for it and not on his father. It is also true in conforming in the rules of the Church such as being virgin before marriage. Let us make these two virgins, Virgin A and Virgin B, as examples. Virgin A is virgin because she is said that in is in the rule of the Church while Virgin B is virgin because she wants it to be a gift for his future husband. I think that Virgin B is better than Virgin A because she doesn’t do good did just because the rules says so but she does good things because it is her choice. Virgin B is authentic. Sartre also emphasizes that existence precedes essence in the case of human beings. We are not like ball pen that has already an essence which is used as writing material before it is made. Man has no manufacturer unlike ball pen that does have. And that said manufacturer which is believed by many is God. Man is the script writer of his own life and it is contracting on the ideas of God’s plan and God’s time. Man is condemned to be free and all the things happened in our life are the choices we made and not the plan of God. Example in an exam, you pray to God that you wanted to pass but you didn’t study. You will absolutely fail the exam in that case because you are the one who chooses not to study and it is not the choice of God. Another thing is the concept of death due to accidents. Some say that he died because it his already to die as God’s time said. Sartre says that there is no such thing as accident because that man chooses the way he drives, what car he would use, what way he will take, what speed he will run and many more. Sartre even says that death except for the absolute death is in our hands because we choose our lifestyle, we choose what we eat, we choose whether we will take the medicine or not, and finally we can do suicide. The main point of Sartre’s philosophy is that we should not blame God on the misfortunes we had because we ourselves are the one who chooses the decisions that lead to that misfortunes.

Now, the last point is the idea of Albert Camus about the absurdity of life which is one of person’s limitations. That point is very important for us because knowing what really life is will give us more freedom. The point said that life has no meaning at all and we must accept the reality that it is it. Many people are attempting the real and absolute meaning of life but I think those people are just wasting their time of doing so. The most common answer to the question of the people of what’s the meaning of life especially the Christians is our life should be offered to God. I think that those people are just fooling themselves telling that they are depending on God and that depending to a God is what Camus called a “philosophical suicide.” That other people who depend to a God is just escaping from the reality and finding out some sort of security by creating to their minds a being not present in the material world. Just like Nietzsche told “Live Dangerously,” we should accept the reality that we cannot do anything beyond the present reality can offer. Camus also said that life is incomplete that’s why it’s absurd. But, it is not advisable to commit suicide knowing that life is absurd; that act is also a form of escape from the reality. We should just accept life as absurd. We should not hope for miracles or anything that is more likely impossible to happen in our situation. “Less hope less pain.” OK, miracles may happen but we are not certain of that. We must expect for the worse and if it happens to be that miracle occurred, I think that’s more advantageous for us not expecting for it rather than expecting for it but it didn’t happened at all. We should just depend on whom/what we are sure to be existing like family/friends, money and others according to Camus. God should not be an escape route if we could not think of anything anymore.

Now, I already discussed the points of those atheists but this is the question: Do those points can prove that God does not exist? I think that the answer is no because though those points are true and logical, they don’t have empirical evidences to disprove God’s existence just like what agnostics say. What they have are just reasons on why we should not depend on God or why God is contradicting to freedom. I admit that those points make sense and true and I think that we should change a bit our actions towards God. God will understand what we do if He is really a God.

The Factor of Religion on the Philippine Anti-Death Penalty Law

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.