Franchezka Mae S.

Celis

A Philosophical Analysis on the Reinstatement of Death Penalty

in the Philippines using Rule Utilitarianism

Death penalty in the country was abolished during the presidency of Corazon Aquino
(under the 1987 Constitution), making the Philippines to be the first in Asia to do so; however, it
was reinstated in 1993 during the presidency of Fidel Ramos in response to the increasing crime
rates.1 It was abolished again in 2006 under Gloria Makapagal-Arroyo and was reduced to
reclusion perpetua after a sustained campaign by the church and human rights groups. Today,
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wants to restore death penalty especially for drug-related
crimes eleven years after it was revoked, because he believes that it would serve as retribution
for those who committed heinous crimes and as a form of deterrence to other possible criminals. 2

In this paper, using rule utilitarianism, I will argue that death penalty should not be
reinstated in the Philippines because: (1) death penalty is not an effective form of deterrence; (2)
the state should uphold the rights of its citizens; (3) death penalty is irreversible and mistakes
happen especially in countries with skewed justice system; and (4) it is discriminatory to the
poor.

Before I proceed to my arguments, I will first define the framework that I will use.
Utilitarianism, by definition, is “a universal teleological system and calls for the maximization of
goodness in society—that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest number”.3 For utilitarians,
“the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as
pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and
unhappiness)”. 4 One form of utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism says that the
action is right if it conforms to a rule whose acceptance would lead to the greatest good for the
society. In dealing with heinous crimes, punishment will always be there. Since punishment
1
Alexis Romeo, “Duterte vows daily executions if death penalty is revived,” The Philippines Star,
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/12/18/1654680/duterte-vows-daily-executions-if-death-penalty-revived,
(Accessed May 15, 2017)
2
“Duterte threatens up to 6 executions daily if death penalty is restored,” ABS-CBN News. http://news.abs-
cbn.com/news/12/19/16/duterte-threatens-up-to-6-executions-daily-if-death-penalty-is-restored, (Accessed May 15,
2017)
3
Louis Pojman, “How Should We Live?” (Wadswordth: Cengage Learning, 2005), 116.
4
Nathan Stevenson, "Act and Rule Utilitarianism," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/, (accessed May 15, 2017).

1
involves inflicting pain to the offender, it needs a moral justification. Rule utilitarians believe
that it is justified to punish criminals if doing so will serve as deterrence, but with consideration
to the concept of justice and rights in order to determine if policies treat individuals in
accordance to their human rights.5

Proponents of death penalty argue using utilitarianism, saying that capital punishment
will permanently incapacitate the criminal and deter would-be criminals by inflicting fear.
However, aside from death penalty, there are other alternatives to punish a criminal such as
reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment. Before I proceed to my arguments, I would like to
differentiate reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment for clarifications. Reclusion perpetua is a
sentence for a crime that is covered by the Revised Penal Code with 20 to 40 years duration of
imprisonment where convicts become eligible for pardon only after 30 years, while life
imprisonment has an indefinite duration and is a sentence for a crime that is covered by a Special
Penal Code.6 Since I already clarified terms that I will use, I will now proceed to my arguments.

Death penalty is not an effective form of deterrent. Deterrence is not only about the
punishment’s severity, but also about how certain and frequent it is applied. Given this,
punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed, but
such conditions cannot be met by death penalty, because it involves prolonged appeals and
sometimes prolonged acquittals.7

If we take a look at the individuals who committed heinous crimes, they were more likely
motivated by stress, anger, and heat of the moment with little consideration for their legal
repercussions. Many heinous crimes are committed when logical thinking was suspended such as
when someone is in the influence of alcohol or drugs. But even if a person is determined to
commit a crime (may even have a detailed plan of executing it), he or she concentrates on
escaping detection, arrest, and conviction.8 Criminals have an instinct of asking themselves on

5
Stevenson, "Act and Rule Utilitarianism,"
6
Alyosha Robillos, “Life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, and other legal terms you should know,” CNN
Philippines, http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/04/17/life-imprisonment-reclusion-perpetua-legalese-
napoles.html, (Accessed May 15, 2017)
7
American Civil Liberties Union, The Case Against Death Penalty, https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-
penalty, (Accessed May 16, 2017)
8
Stanton Samenow, “Do Criminals Desire to Get Caught?” Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201608/do-criminals-desire-get-caught-0,
(accessed May 15, 2017)

2
“how to get away” with the crime for it means zero liability and no punishment at all. A rational
person will always look for an escape route before thinking about the weight of the punishment.
If criminals think that they can easily get away with it, they would not even think of possible
legal consequences of their actions. Moreover, they might still pre-empt situations of them being
caught, but they will always think on how will they be acquitted or have a lesser sentence. Given
the flawed criminal justice system and law enforcement in the Philippines (which I further prove
later), criminals (especially the rich ones) would know that the likelihood of being caught or
convicted is low (especially if they have a competent lawyer). Given this, criminals will not fear
death penalty, making it as an ineffective form of deterrent. What we need is a stricter
enforcement of laws and not harsher forms of punishment. If death penalty does not really deter
criminals, then the utilitarian justification for death penalty is debunked. However, using
utilitarian itself, I will further argue that death penalty will just bring more pain than pleasure.

If the state takes away the life of the convict, then there will automatically be no utility
from them because they are permanently incapacitated. The possible good things that they could
do while in jail such as doing arts and crafts (which could be later on sold in the market) will be
automatically gone. They could no longer provide (even just a little) for their families. And if
they will just be imprisoned but later on granted a parole, they can still be productive citizens
with the help of rehabilitation. This potentiality will already be gone if they will be sent to the
death row. In addition, the family and friends of the convict will be in pain knowing that their
loved one is on the death row. The gravity of emotions inflicted on those left behind echoes
through all facets of their life to the point that it impairs people and renders them useless because
of depression. Also, the loss of a loved one creates resentment towards the state especially if they
believe that the decision was not fair. There is also no guarantee that family of the criminal’s
victim will feel relieved; they may also feel guilty because someone’s life was taken away, and
will even feel guilty if the executed individual was wrongfully convicted. Moreover, because we
are situated in a Christian-majority country and the church condemns such execution, the
families will feel that justice is better served through hell or the convicted person deserves a
second chance to change his or her life while inside the prison cell. Since this is a religious
country, people might think that only God (not even the government) can take away a life. Given

3
this, using the lens of rule utilitarianism, we should aim to minimize pain and maximize utility,
and death penalty only gives unnecessary sufferings to the people.

On the other hand, granting but never conceding that severe punishment deters crimes,
then reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are severe enough to deter individuals from
violent crimes. More than the idea of the terrible condition of the prison cells in the Philippines,
criminals will be forced to stay there for decades (and perhaps for a lifetime) and a lot of liberties
will be taken away. The power to explore, freedom to socialize, entitlement to vote, tasting good
food, and time for family will be stripped from the prisoner. Given the gravity of this
punishment, it can deter individuals to commit crimes. Comparatively, death penalty offers a
quick end while imprisonment is a slow and painful experience. Given this, if it were true that
the severity of punishment deters possible criminals, then life imprisonment is a better deterrent.
This still satisfies the view of rule utilitarians that punishment is needed as a preventive tool.

The state should uphold the rights of its citizens. Proponents of death penalty might argue
that the death of the criminal will serve justice to the victims and their family. Since rule
utilitarians acknowledge the value of justice, it adheres to the idea to make the criminal
accountable in a fair trial but not to the extent of resorting to death penalty; that is why other
forms of punishment such as reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are available. If the state
executes convicts, then it is committing the same violence it condemns (i.e. teaching killing is
wrong through killing). If proponents of death penalty use the principle of “an eye for an eye”,
then it is going to be inconsistent (and not proportional) in the long run because rapists are not
raped nor drug pushers will be forced to intake drugs. Given this, even the principle that justifies
death penalty is flawed.

Another reason why we should not reinstate death penalty is that we have to acknowledge
that every person has the right to life, and executing convicts violate this right as stated in the
international rule of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.9 Human rights apply to the best and
worst of us. As rule utilitarians, human rights are valued as outcomes of utility consideration and
should not be lightly violated upon.10 Using rule utilitarianism, it is recommended for a
government to choose a policy where everyone in the society—innocent people or criminals—

9
“Death Penalty”, Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/#, (Accessed May
15, 2017)
10
Pojman, “How Should We Live?”, 130

4
will be given equal consideration. The victims will still benefit because justice is served through
the imprisonment of the criminal, but also, the criminal will benefit because his or her right to
life was not taken away, and we can avoid the unnecessary sufferings brought by death penalty.

Death penalty is irreversible and mistakes happen especially in countries with skewed
justice system. Execution is irreversible because the risk of executing an innocent person can
never be eliminated. If it is carried out, it is already final and mistakes that are made cannot be
unmade. If an innocent person was wrongfully convicted, he or she may still be released from
prison, but an execution can never be reversed. Also, it will be impossible for the state to
compensate executed prisoners should later on be proven innocent unlike those who have been
sentenced in prison. Mistakes of wrongful conviction really happen especially with the kind
government and justice system of the Philippines.

There were irregularities and mistakes that happened in the decisions of the judiciary
when death penalty was reinstated in the Philippines. The Supreme Court noted that death
sentences had been wrongfully imposed in 71.77 percent in the 907 death-penalty cases it had
reviewed since 1993.11 Moreover, even if police investigators should rely on the evidence such
as confessions and eyewitness testimony, in practice, the police tend to focus on the suspect and
then later on gather evidence to put that person into prison.12 The Supreme Court also found
police irregularities such as use of shortcuts, planted/recycled evidence, arresting without
warrants, and harassment just to put a suspect in prison.13

Given this, since death penalty is already not justified theoretically, even more so if it is
applied because of different political interests and flawed justice system. I already argued that
there is a high chance for wrongful convictions and the innocent person could die if death
penalty is reinstated. These things can further lead to injustice, denial of human rights, and a lot
more suffering.

Death penalty is discriminatory to the poor. If death penalty will be restored, it can be
viewed as an easy way out of the government to eliminate poor criminals. Poor individuals are
11
Tomasito Villarin, “Duterte Wants the Death Penalty Back”, The New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/duterte-wants-the-death-penalty-back.html, (Accessed May 15,
20017)
12
Free Legal Assistance Group, “Socio-Economic Profile of Capital Offenders in the Philippines”,
http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/flag-survey-death-row.pdf, (Accessed May 17, 2017)
13
Free Legal Assistance Group, “Socio-Economic Profile of Capital Offenders in the Philippines”

5
more vulnerable to wrongful convictions because they cannot afford to hire competent lawyers;
they are even part of the 73 percent in the death row who earned less than 10,000 a month.14 The
list (which includes drug use and distribution) punishable by death penalty is also questionable.
There are recent happenings in the war on drugs waged by President Duterte in which death
penalty was seen as the most preferred solution to drug-related crimes, with poor mostly the
victims. Even if the poor really did the crimes, imposing death penalty to drug users can even
mean double jeopardy towards the poor because the policy is insensitive to the context of some
poor individuals who are forced to engage in drug trade to feed for their families and survive.
Many poor individuals were born in an environment where drug trade is rampant and different
crimes are committed. They were born in a situation where the government cannot give them
security and protection from drug trade. We cannot solely blame the individuals because they do
not live in a vacuum. Since they were given inadequate state funding, their situation is affected
by a problem in the system. Moreover, even if they want to withdraw from drugs, it is hard for
them because of the addictive substances in the drugs. Given this, death penalty can be used as
an easy way out to eliminate poor drug users and pushers. If we take a look at it, drug
manufacturers (who are rich people) are the ones who use their machinery to sell drugs and
encourage people to buy drugs. Rich people won’t risk their lives selling drugs on the streets;
this is the reason why they use poor people to distribute the drugs (which make the poor at risk
of being caught and killed) yet the most part of the profit goes to the rich. I agree that drug users
should still be punished because of their transgression to the rule of law, but not to the extent of
death penalty because they too, are victims of the drug lords and inadequate government support.

In addition, if death penalty will be reinstated, it is going to be inconsistent to the

country’s history as a nation leading human rights discourse in Asia. 15 The Philippines already
ratified an international treaty in 2007 that prohibits executions and agrees that the country
should abolish death penalty. This agreement cannot be withdrawn at any time. Moreover, there
is a possibility that reinstatement of death penalty will affect the aid given to the country. Some
countries and investors against death penalty might threaten to withdraw aid and investments

14
Villarin, “Duterte Wants the Death Penalty Back”
15
Kristian Javier, “Amnesty International: ‘Yes’ vote on death penalty will shame Philippines”, The Philippine Star.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/03/03/1677275/amnesty-international-yes-vote-death-penalty-will-
shame-philippines, (Accessed May 17, 2017)

6
from the Philippines, adversely affecting the economy and international relations of the country.
Again, these are possible harms that the reinstatement of death penalty can cause.

Overall, I have argued that death penalty, as a severe punishment, is not effective form of
deterrent while analyzing the possible mindset of criminals. I also responded to the idea that even
if the severity of punishment can deter possible criminals, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is already severe enough. I also argued that death penalty only gives unnecessary
sufferings and pain to the criminal, criminal’s family, and possibly the family’s victim given that
this is a Christian-majority country. I also used the lens of rule utilitarianism to explain that
justice and human rights should be taken into consideration while still maximizing utility and not
causing unnecessary suffering. I also contextualized the issue of death penalty in the Philippines
where there is skewed justice system and questionable law enforcement that could possibly put
innocent people in the death row. Moreover, I considered other factors that pushed the person to
commit crimes such as poverty and bad environment. I also conceded that these criminals should
be punished as they have violated the law and also to give justice to their victims, but not to the
extent of executing them. I also added possible consequences that the country might face if it
will adopt capital punishment. Given these arguments, if we want to uphold human rights,
minimize pain, and maximize utility, death penalty should not be reinstated in the Philippines.

7
 Bibliography

American Civil Liberties Union, The Case Against Death Penalty. https://www.aclu.org/other
/%20case-%20against-death-penalty (accessed May 16, 2017)

“Death Penalty”. Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-

penalty/#. (accessed May 15, 2017)

“Duterte threatens up to 6 executions daily if death penalty is restored,” ABS-CBN News.

http://news.abs- cbn.com/news/12/19/16/duterte-threatens-up-to-6-executions-daily-if-
death-penalty-is-restored (accessed May 15, 2017)

Free Legal Assistance Group. “Socio-Economic Profile of Capital Offenders in the Philippines”.
http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/flag-survey-death-row.pdf, (Accessed May 17, 2017)

Javier, Kristian. “Amnesty International: ‘Yes’ vote on death penalty will shame Philippines”.
The Philippine Star. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/03/03/1677275/amnesty-
international-yes-vote-death-penalty-will-shame-philippines, (Accessed May 17, 2017)

Pojman, Louis. "Utilitarianism." In How Should We Live?, by Louis Pojman, 12. Wadswordth:
Cengage Learning, 2005.

Romeo, Alexis. “Duterte vows daily executions if death penalty is revived”. The Philippines
Star. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/12/18/1654680/duterte-vows-daily-
executions-if-death-penalty-revived, (accessed May 15, 2017)
Samenow, Stanton. “Do Criminals Desire to Get Caught?” Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201608/do-criminals-
desire-get-caught-0. (accessed May 15, 2017)
Stevenson, Nathan. "Act and Rule Utilitarianism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/ (accessed May 15, 2017).

Robillos, Alyosha. “Life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, and other legal terms you should

8
 know,” CNN Philippines, http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/04/17/life-imprisonment-
reclusion-perpetua-legalese-napoles.html, (Accessed May 15, 2017)

Villarin, Tomasito. “Duterte Wants the Death Penalty Back”, The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/duterte-wants-the-death-penalty-
back.html, (accessed May 15, 20017)