The 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly provides in Article III, Section 1

that every person shall not be deprived of life, liberty and their property.
Added to that, Article II on the Declaration of Principles the protection of
life is one of those considered as essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy. Then in the same Article II on State
Policies, the State is mandated to equally protect the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception (Section 12). But even without the
pronouncement of said provisions, right to life is an inherent right of every
person regardless of what state, nationality, colour, race or denomination,
such lingers as a shadow that goes with the implementation of any laws,
rules and regulations.
The right to life is a moral principle that a human being has the right to
live and therefore, should not be killed by another. If every person has this
right, thus, is it justifiable or is it legal that one shall impose capital
punishment and euthanasia?
The right to die is rooted on the belief that human being is entitled to
commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. This right is often
understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed
to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment,
where a disease would otherwise prolong their sufferings which are with
identical result.
Proponents typically associate the right to die with the idea that one's
body and one's life are one's own, to dispose of as one sees fit. However, a
legitimate state interest in preventing irrational suicides is sometimes
argued. Pilpel and Amsel write, "Contemporary proponents of 'rational
suicide' or the 'right to die' usually demand by 'rationality' that the decision
to kill oneself be both the autonomous choice of the agent (i.e., not due to
the physician or the family pressuring them to 'do the right thing' and
commit suicide) and a 'best option under the circumstances' choice desired
by the stoics or utilitarians, as well as other natural conditions such as the
choice being stable, not an impulsive decision, not due to mental illness,
achieved after due deliberation, etc (A Pilpel; L Amsel. "What is Wrong with
Rational Suicide").
Hinduism accepts the right to die for those who are tormented by
terminal diseases or those who have no desire, ambition or no
responsibilities remaining; and allows death through the non-violent practice
of fasting to the point of starvation ("Hinduism Euthanasia and
Suicide". BBC. 2009-08-25). Other religious views on suicide vary in their
tolerance, and include denial of the right as well as condemnation of the act.
In the Catholic faith, suicide is considered a grave sin, the same belief that
Philippines take cognizance to.

In two cases from 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that physicianassisted suicide is not a protected liberty interest under the Constitution.
However, the rulings in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg left the
door open for states to permit physician-assisted suicide. Washington v.
Glucksberg dealt with the constitutionality of a Washington statute that
made it felony for a person to assist in the suicide of another. According to
the statute, A person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he
knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide. Maximum
punishment for conviction was five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
Another statute in Washington, the Natural Death Act, provided, Withholding
or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment at a patients direction shall not,
for any purpose, constitute a suicide. A number of physicians and their
terminally ill patients brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of the
assisted suicide law. These plaintiffs claimed the existence of a liberty
interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment which extends to a
personal choice by a mentally competent, terminally ill adult to commit
physician-assisted suicide.
As to the issue on capital punishment, the death penalty have two
sides of the issue: the opponents of the said punishment argue that it is a
violation of the right to life while supporters of capital punishment argue that
the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life because the right to life
should apply with deference to a sense of justice. Because the death penalty
is not considered unjust murder, proponents of capital punishment argue
that it does not violate UN decisions, proclamations, or the right to life.
Punishment may range from a slap on the wrist to death, but the
punishment must fit the crime. This is known as lex talionis, or in common
jargon, "an eye for an eye." Abolitionists [those who want to abolish the
death penalty] often insist that if we argue for lex talion justice we must be
prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of
arsonists. Certainly, this is the case if we take the lex talion literally, and the
criminals do deserve those punishments, but we needn't take it literally. The
ancient Jews did not. They allowed for monetary compensation for physical
or property damage.
Filipinos have mixed opinions about the death penalty, with many
opposing it on religious and humanitarian grounds, while advocates see it as
a way of deterring crimes.
Under the Marcos regime, drug trafficking also became punishable by
death by firing squad, such as the case with Lim Seng, whose execution in
December 1972 was also ordered broadcast on national television. Future
President and then Chief of the Philippine Constabulary Gen. Fidel V.
Ramos were present at the execution.

The electric chair was used until 1976, when execution by firing squad
eventually replaced it as the sole method of execution. Under Marcos' 20year authoritarian rule, however, countless more people were summarily
executed, tortured or simply disappeared for opposition to his rule.
After Marcos was deposed in 1986, the newly drafted 1987
Constitution prohibited the death penalty but allowed the Congress to
reinstate it "hereafter" for "heinous crimes"; making the Philippines the first
Asian country to abolish capital punishment.
Since the death penalty's suspension in 2006, there have been continued
public and media calls for its reintroduction, particularly prompted by highprofile murder cases.
During
the 2016
election,
presidential
candidate
and
frontrunner, Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte, campaigned to restore the
death penalty in the Philippines. During the "Yes or No" segment of
the second presidential debate on March 20, 2016, Duterte and
Senator Grace Poe were the only candidates who said "Yes" when asked
about the restoration of the death penalty in the country, favoring the
decision. Duterte, who won the election in May 2016, supports restoration of
the the death penalty by hanging. It has been reported that he wants capital
punishment for criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire syndicates
and those who commit heinous crimes such as rape, robbery or car theft
where the victim is murdered,while Poe has stated that the capital
punishment should apply to criminals convicted of "drugs and multiple
crimes where involved people can no longer be rehabilitated.
Hence, after all of the foregoing, it can be concluded that Right to die
can be both a right as applied and argued in the case of Euthanasia and
other consented suicide due to serious and terminal illnesses. While a
statutory right as to the infliction of capital punishment, where ones life is
not controlled by thyself anymore but is subject to the final and executor
decisions of courts who finds it equal that a life must be taken as sanction to
a heinous crime, this idealism is in consonance to the classical theory of the
application of Philippine penal laws.