Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, Honorable panel of adjudicators, to my colleagues and to our esteemed opponents from the affirmative side, good day. The topic to either not or re impose death penalty had been the subject of discourse all around the world. Ladies and Gentlemen, in this august academic discourse, I will elicit our primary reasons why it would not be beneficial to re impose death penalty in the Philippines. Re imposing death penalty in the Philippines is not beneficial or it is disadvantageous because of 2 main reasons. 1. There is no absolute assurance that the convict is always guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Constitutional Framer Hector S. De Leon stated in his textbook on the 1987 constitution that “There is always a possibility of error in condemning a person to death”. This was further stated in the 1987 constitution: A commentary by Constitutional Framer and Dean Emeritus of Ateneo Law School Joaquin G. Bernas. “Assuming mastery over the life of another man is just too presumptuous for any human” This argument was strengthened in the admission of the Supreme court in 2004 that in every 10 cases of capital punishment, 7 are guilty of judicial errors. Out of the 1,493 cases, 907 were passed for review of the court and 71.77% of which was guilty of judicial error. This was elicited in the case of a. People of the Philippines vs. Efren Mateo Other cases were already sentenced to death but were acquitted in the Supreme Court such as the cases of a. People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Prazo b. People of the Philippines vs. Fernando Galera Finally, fatal mistakes led to execution of somebody not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of people of the Philippines vs. Eusebio Molijan, Supreme Court acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence that he was the instigator of the crime but his death sentenced was confirmed. Clearly, death penalty is undeniably risky giving no benefit to the victim’s family and the appellant. 2. It is not beneficial because death Penalty is an inherently agonizing process Constitutional Framer Hector S. De Leon stated in the same book that “It is cruel and inhuman for the convict and family who are traumatized by the waiting even if it is never carried out.” Similar principle was reiterated in the book of constitutionalist Joaquin G. Bernas in the same book; “Its imposition even if not carried out traumatizes not only the convict but also the members of his family” Regardless of the method used in execution, the psychological trauma that is caused by the time it takes before the actual execution is not beneficial to the convict and his family whereas one of the main objective of the death penalty is that it must be humane and not inflict psychological punishment stated in the Bill of Rights Article 3, Section 19, paragraph 2. In the research of Professor Susan Sharp: Review of hidden victims: The effects of the Death Penalty on Families of the Accused. She noted that “It is always forgotten that prisoners condemned to die are not only accused murderers but also sons, perhaps brothers, fathers and husbands. Because of their connection to a person judged to be so evil that he must be exterminated, families are treated as less deserving of compassion, or even as being treated as partially responsible crime of their relatives.” There are also distinctive challenges faced by these neglected families, challenges created by the stigmatized, shamed status of the family member; a lack of social support; the multilayer process of appeals and waiting; dealing with people who clamor for the execution of the person they love; and, for many, watching their loved one being killed at an appointed time. Clearly, the process of death penalty is giving no benefit at all most especially to the family of the accused which is supposed to be humane. Does the data presented define the term humane? In the first place, considering the fact that life is taken away from you intentionally, is the concept of death humane?