SPEECH:

OUR LAWS believe that for the state to ensure a peaceful and harmonious environment,
any violation of the law, if guilt is proven, is equivalent to any punishment or penalty as
provided by law.

Your honors, I would like to reiterate our stand that death penalty shall not be reinstated for the
following reasons:

1 the constitutional provision stating the limitation on the power of the congress to impose
death penalty only upon compelling reasons for heinous crimes

2 non-deterrence of crime and violation on the international treaty we have entered into
among the members of the UNHRC

3 its impracticability to our current situation

We are not saying that the death penalty is unconstitutional for it would look like we are
amending both the constitution and the revised penal code which is out of this debates
parameters. We are only stating the fact that if it will be reinstated today, it will be
violating the constitution for the lack of compelling reason and impracticability in our
current state.

The first speaker discussed to us the consti provision Art 2 sec 11 valuing human life and in which
further relates or give emphasis to our basic human rights enshrined in Article 3 sec 19 stating that
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Now lets go back to the term compelling reason. From the argument of the second
speaker, death penalty does not deter crimes showing statistical data in the Philippines and
comparison between countries like Singapore, USA, iran and Pakistan. Another, we are bound
by the the treaty we have entered into against death penalty. This may not be absolute but
violation of such would result to different economic drawbacks as stated in Taada vs anggara

Last, the third speaker emphasized that it is not yet practicable to reinstate death penalty
because of:
1. it is error prone
2. current maladies of criminal system
3. it is pro poor
Your honors, we have already opened our judicial system to the imposition of death penalty
but what did we get in return? Crime did not deter. In fact, as stated by the previous speaker
the SC committed errors amounting to 71.77% in imposing death penalty and with the
current issues involving the exercise of police power, do you, your honors, believe that it is
currently practicable?
The claim of the affirmative side that the death penalty

(a) is a fitting response to criminality;

(b) it will restore respect for the laws;
(c) it is a path to achieve justice; and
(d) it is geared towards genuine reform in the criminal justice system

are not impressed with compelling reasons because:

(a) data show that the rate of criminality has gone down and the
death penalty is not a deterrent;
(b) the SWS survey released this year documented that the number
of Filipinos who were victims of crimes have gone down to record
lows;
(c) punitive justice is not the avenue to achieve justice because
vengeance is never justice; and
(d) the imposition of capital punishment is not a precursor to judicial
reforms.

We, again, tell you, your honors that the justice the framers of our constitution intends is
by reformation. Is death penalty a way of reforming the criminal? Would the possible errors
our judicial system and police force would commit worth the risk of killing an innocent life? We
think not! It is not reformation nor even rehabilitation but it is retaliation.

Let us remind you your honors that an innocent life taken away cannot be given back. Such
wrongful execution would only taint the reputation of our judicial system.

Again, as said by the first speaker, what prevents people from committing crimes is the
certainty of precise apprehension, speedy and proper prosecution, and if warranted,
conviction.

The death penalty is an abhorrent punishment. It forecloses the reformation of the convict. It
victimizes the poor. It is not the solution to criminality. It is not the answer to poverty and social
injustice. THANK YOU.
CROSS EXAMINATION

Good evening madamme speaker

Do you believe that the Philippines follows the doctrine of parens patriae? Yes

Then, would a father kill his own child because another person said that they should be killed?

Next, do all of us deserve justice?

Is justice convertible to cash?

Then there is no point in debating about the cost incurred for the reinstatement and non
reinstatement of death penalty.

Next, are you arguing for the reinstatement of the death penalty?

Of course youd say yes. Now mme speaker, Is death penalty found under our constitution?
Yes

YES it is stated under art 3 sec 19. Mme speaker ill ask you, do we have any compelling
reason to impose death penalty? YES

WHAT mme speaker?

Have you read the news lately about the crimes in our country? Yes

Then I believe that you have learned that there is a significant decrease in the number of
crimes committed in our country? Yes

If no, your honors there is a recent survey the SWS released on 31 January 2017 documented
that the number of Filipinos who were victims of crimes have gone down to record lows

Then we believe there is no compelling reason to impose such penalty. No further questions
your honor.