Impracticability of Death penalty in the Philippines

We abhor the reimposition of death penalty as it is ineffective, unjust, costly, anti-poor, and
prone to human error. Why ? according to statistics, it is an ineffective deterrent as most severe crimes
are committed without rational thought of the punishment that will follow whether it is by execution or
a life imprisonment which means that it does not apply to everyone. There are people who before
committing a crime rationalize and weigh the cost and benefit behind the death penalty however there
are people who commit crimes out of impulse, rage, under the influence of drugs and alcohol and some
are mentally ill lacking the ability to mentally process to think the severe consequences of their act.

Even though many may feel it an inappropriate argument to equate a human life to the expense
incurred by the taxpayer to keep that person alive, we have probably all heard someone proclaim in
favor of executions that they “do not know why we should have to pay to keep a killer alive!” A
compelling argument to some, a total missing of the point to others. Either way, those who rely on this
argument are often surprised to find out that it actually costs more (a lot more) to execute someone
than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. And, it is a point that may have an impact on the
death penalty argument from a government point of view, as well.

The shortage of sodium thiopental has forced the 35 states using lethal injection to scramble for
any remaining stock and to explore alternatives.

“Many states will have to change their method of execution, which means regulatory changes
that have to be approved and lengthy court challenges,” says Richard Dieter, executive director of the
Death Penalty Information Center. “In many states, this could take months, if not years, delaying
executions.”

Some states—including California, Arizona and Nebraska—were able to obtain the drug from
suppliers in England and India. The British government has since banned such shipments. A class-action
lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to allow the importation of the drug into
the country without adequate inspection or quality checks is pending. Death penalty opponents have
raised questions about the quality of the drugs, arguing that if the drugs were expired or otherwise
failed to work effectively, inmates could suffer significant pain, violating the ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.

Another reason many states have seen skyrocketing costs and have considered banning the
death penalty: DNA evidence. Genetic testing is not terribly cheap, nor are the experts required to
testify about the results. But, now that hundreds have been exonerated as a result of genetic testing, it
is clear that it is an invaluable tool in the criminal process and has helped to prevent innocent men from
facing death for crimes they did not commit. Therefore, despite the expense, DNA testing is here to stay
despite adding to the expense of a death penalty case.
 Death penalty trials are more expensive for several other reasons, as well. They often require
additional attorneys, including some with specific levels of experience who are “death penalty certified.”
Needless to say, these attorneys tend to command higher salaries than first year public defenders.
Security costs are often higher for death penalty cases, both in the courtroom and in prison where death
row inmates are usually housed separately from other inmates.

while cost is not the only factor to be considered, when it comes down to an argument
regarding the benefits of the death penalty to society, the argument that it is cheaper to execute
someone than keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives is utterly wrong.

 reintroduction of the death penalty may threaten the Philippines’ eligibility for the
European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences Plus (GSP+) tariff exemption
system. It’s a valid point because the country has already agreed under various
international conventions not to bring back capital punishment.
 The GSP+ program is an extension of the GSP program, which was designed to give a
boost to developing economies by offering tariff-free export to the EU on some
products, and reduced tariffs on others.

 Under that program, the Philippines could export 2,442 products to the EU at zero tariff
and enjoyed reduced rates on 3,767 others. Graduating to GSP+ status in December
2014 made all 6,209 of those products duty-free for the Philippines, and added 65
others, for a total of 6,274.

 The tariff exemption benefits had an immediate impact on Philippine trade with the EU.
In the first half of 2015, Philippine exports to the EU jumped by 27 percent year-on-year
from 584 million euros in the first six months of 2014 to 743 million euros in the same
period in 2015.

 In order to gain eligibility for GSP+, the Philippines had to agree to ratify and implement
27 different international treaties and conventions on human rights, labor rights,
environment and governance, a process that actually began several years prior to EU
approval in December 2014.
 Secretary Lopez has every reason to be concerned that the preferential status of the
Philippines is under threat, because there are precedents for suspending the country’s
eligibility: Several years ago, Sri Lanka was ejected from the program for human rights
violations in the aftermath of that country’s long civil war, and in late 2015, Pakistan
was warned that if it did not “reconsider” its restoration of the death penalty—which it
has imposed with enthusiasm since 2014, executing at least 389 prisoners—that it
would most likely lose its GSP+ eligibility this year. Given the already widespread
skepticism about President Rodrigo Duterte’s commitment to human rights issues, it is a
 near certainty that the Philippines would soon follow, perhaps later this year or in early
2018.
 The biggest beneficiaries of GSP+ eligibility over the past two years have been the
country’s small and medium enterprises, since by design the absence of tariffs favors
smaller volumes of goods. So naturally, losing the tariff-free advantage is going to hurt
the country’s small businesses the most, something that would be contrary to what the
current government has said are its broader socioeconomic aspirations.

 Study after study, beginning with a United Nations review way back in 1968 that
concluded, “It is generally agreed that the data which now exist show no correlation
between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of capital crime,”

 “In 1999, the bumper year for executions, the national crime volume
ironically increased by 15.3 percent or a total of 82,538 (from 71,527
crimes in the previous year).”

 Costs would include expenses incurred starting with police investigation

through the legal processes including trial, sentencing, appeal, and up
to execution itself; various opportunity costs like foregone output of
convicts (from prison labor), and from the time spent by all involved in
the legal processes; and the cost of the possibility of executing the
innocent. Studies done on various states in America indicate that direct
financial analysis of the additional costs of legal processes involved in
death-eligible crimes makes the death penalty a great fiscal burden not
worth assuming. Such analysis may not be applicable to the Philippines’
less rigorous (and less disciplined) judicial system. It can also be
extremely difficult to put numbers on the indirect benefits and costs
described above. As no hard-nosed economic cost-benefit assessment
on the death penalty appears to have been done in the Philippine
setting, we have no firm basis from this type of clinical analysis on the
question. But then most of us probably feel that the question on the
death penalty was never one of economics in the first place.
 We will have violated the provisions of a global human rights
instrument — the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 When the Philippines ratified, and therefore bound itself to the ICCPR in
1986, it was obliged to respect any human being’s inherent right to life,
as stated in Article 6 of the treaty. When we additionally ratified the
ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol in 2007 — a complementary
instrument drafted with the specific goal of abolishing the death
penalty in the territory of any State who is a party to it — we expressly
and even more strongly bound ourselves to this obligation.
 Article 1 of the protocol states that “No one within the jurisdiction of a
State Party to the present Protocol shall be executed,” and that “Each
State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death
penalty within its jurisdiction.”

 Even a year before the Philippines ratified the protocol, former

president Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration already saw the complete
abolition of the death penalty in 2006, anticipating our permanent
commitment to our international obligation (thus explaining her “no”
vote in the final House reading in 2017).

 Notably, the Philippines is not allowed to denounce or withdraw from

its obligations in the ICCPR (of which the protocol forms a part),
considering the fundamental nature of the rights it protects.

 Aside from violating the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol, the
reimposition of the death penalty may also have adverse economic
effects to the country. Some international instruments look into the
ratification of major human rights conventions (the ICCPR and its
protocols are landmark human rights agreements) as a requisite before
granting trade benefits to developing States, such as the Philippines.

 The definitions of “heinous crimes” and “compelling reasons” justifying

the imposition of the death penalty may be revisited by the Supreme Court.

 The death penalty is not absolutely prohibited by the Constitution. It

may be reimposed by Congress, only on account of “compelling reasons
 involving heinous crimes.” In light of rising criminality during the term
of President Ramos, the death penalty was reimposed in December
1993, and was carried out through lethal injection. Leo Echegaray was
the first to be executed in 1999 under the reimposed death penalty law.

The following crimes will be punishable by the proposed death penalty:

 Treason
 Qualified piracy
 Qualified bribery
 Parricide
 Murder
 Infanticide
 Rape
 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
 Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
 Destructive arson
 Plunder
 Importation of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals
 Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and
transportation of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals
 Maintenance of drug den
 Manufacture of dangerous drugs and or controlled precursor and essential
chemicals
 Possession of dangerous drugs
 Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs
 Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
 Criminal liability of public officer for misappropriation, misapplication or
failure to account for the confiscated seized or surrendered drugs
 Criminal liability for planting evidence

“Nothing in the said provision,” said the court, “imposes a requirement that for a
death penalty bill to be valid, a positive manifestation in the form of a higher
incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven following the
suspension of the death penalty. Neither does the said provision require that the
death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse when all other criminal reforms have
failed to abate criminality in society.”

As to the heinous nature of crimes, the court attempted to illustrate it this way:

“The elements of heinousness and compulsion are inseparable and are, in fact,
interspersed with each other. Because the subject crimes are either so revolting and
debasing as to violate the most minimum of the human standards of decency or its
effects, repercussions, implications and consequences so destructive, destabilizing,
debilitating, or aggravating in the context of our socio-political and economic agenda
as a developing nation, these crimes must be frustrated, curtailed and altogether
eradicated.”

In a related note, some House representatives, in fact, are also mulling questioning
the current death penalty bill in court once it passes, for violating procedural rules.

Prior to 2006, the highest court has already admitted in People v. Mateo the fatal
fallibility of some of its judges, stating that 77.71 percent of the decisions tried by
lower courts, imposing the death penalty, are either modified or reversed upon
review by the highest court. In the case, the Supreme Court even stated the
following numbers: Of the 907 cases it reviewed from 1993 to 2004, only 230 (25.36
percent) have been affirmed (or found to have been properly decided by the lower
courts). From death, the Supreme Court in fact reduced the penalty to reclusion
perpetua in 483 cases (53.25 percent). It also rendered an acquittal in 65 cases.

In sum, the court surmised: during that period, 651 out of 907 individuals were saved
from lethal injection, and would have been wrongly punished with the death penalty
if not for the review conducted by the Supreme Court.