The death penalty has been a contentious issue in the Philippines for many years. Officially abolished in 2006 due to concerns about human rights violations, wrongful convictions, and its ineffectiveness in deterring crime, the debate over its reinstatement persists. Proponents argue that it could address rising crime rates and provide justice for victims. However, critics emphasize its moral, legal, and practical flaws, highlighting the risks of wrongful executions and violations of human rights. This essay argues against the return of the death penalty, underscoring its failure as a deterrent, its inconsistency with international human rights standards, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized populations.

The Philippine’s Consideration of Reinstating the Death Penalty is a Grave Step Backwards

The human rights situation in the Philippines has been in a state of alarming decline in recent years, and the government’s recent consideration of bills to reinstate the death penalty represents a particularly troubling development. The Duterte government’s overwhelming majority in Congress, coupled with its relentless campaign against illegal drugs, suggests that the justice committee is likely to support such legislation. This is particularly concerning given the already dire human rights situation in the country. Duterte’s “war on drugs” has resulted in the deaths of thousands of individuals at the hands of the Philippine National Police and unidentified gunmen, with virtually no accountability for these killings, including those of children. The adoption of the death penalty would only exacerbate this crisis, leading to further bloodshed in the name of the “drug war.” It would represent a significant step backward for the Philippines, pushing it further into a “rights-violating abyss.”

Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities

The death penalty disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations who lack access to adequate legal representation. This systemic bias contradicts the principle of equality before the law and exacerbates existing social inequalities. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are more vulnerable to receiving death sentences, further highlighting the injustice of capital punishment.

Violation of Human Rights

The death penalty undermines fundamental human rights, including the right to life and protection from cruel and inhumane punishment. The 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits such punishments and emphasizes rehabilitation over retribution. Furthermore, by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007, the Philippines committed to abolishing capital punishment—a commitment that would be violated if it were reinstated.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that reinstating the death penalty would be a grave step backward for the Philippines. It fails to deter crime effectively, poses significant risks of wrongful executions, disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, and violates international human rights commitments. Instead of perpetuating an unjust and discriminatory system, resources should be allocated to addressing systemic flaws in the justice system, promoting judicial reform, and tackling the root causes of crime through social programs. Upholding human dignity and fostering a just society requires rejecting capital punishment in favor of more humane and effective approaches to justice.

References:

Amnesty International. (1997). Philippines: Death penalty - the risk of judicial killing. https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/amnesty/1997/en/23654
Manila Bulletin. (2020, October 10). Mostly the poor face death penalty - CHR. https://mb.com.ph/2020/10/10/mostly-the-poor-face-death-penalty-chr/#google_vignette
Philippine Star. (2020, August 5). Lawyers: Death penalty more likely to affect poor, doesn't deter crime. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/08/05/2033131/lawyers-death-penalty-more-likely-affect-poor-doesnt-deter-crime/amp/