Motion

The motion of the affirmative side is to re-impose death penalty of the

crime of terrorism, as it is heinous for being grievous, devious and hateful
offense, which by reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness,
atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards
and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, with a
special court to be created with the exclusive jurisdiction to try and heard cases
of terrorism. Furthermore, a division of PAO lawyers should likewise be created
with the sole responsibility of handling cases involving terrorism.

I- Introduction

Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution states the prime duty of the government to
serve and protect the people.

These days, the pearl of the orient is facing a silent but deadly threat known
as terrorism. According to the recent study conducted by Global Terrorism Index,
the Philippines ranked 11th out of 162 countries in terms of the impact of terrorism
in the Global Terrorism Index 2015, a tool that analyzes the rends in terrorist
activities worldwide. In the year 2014 alone, the Philippines experienced 378
terrorism incidents last year that left 240 persons dead and 367 others injured. A
total of 529 properties were damaged because of the atrocities. In line with this, it
is the contention of the affirmative side to re-impose death penalty of the crime of
terrorism as it is heinous for being grievous, devious and hateful offense, which
by reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. Furthermore, the
affirmative side also contending that with the re-imposition of death penalty a
special court should be created with the exclusive jurisdiction to try and heard
cases of terrorism. And a division of PAO lawyers should likewise be created with
the sole responsibility of handling cases involving terrorism. It is also the belief of
the affirmative side that once a sentence of death penalty is pronounced by the
court, it should automatically be suspended for a period of three years and within
such suspense period an extensive assessment must be conducted by an expert
on whether or not the convicted person shows remorse, repentance and self-
reproach. If it is proven that the convicted person manifests the above-mentioned
conditions his sentence shall be reduced to Reclusion Perpetua. Basically, any
person who commits any act of terrorism under RA 9372 or Human Security Act
of 2007, thereby, sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of
terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of death.

II- Arguments

A.

The re-imposition of death penalty under the parameter mentioned-above

is very much necessary or essential because of this following reasons: First, it
would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a
just and humane society.

Death penalty is right because it is an exercise of society fight to self-

defense. Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life of
another, there are exceptional cases where this is morally justified. A person has
right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life of limb, society, like
the individual has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is
threatened. Since society is constituted by aggregate of individuals to kill one or
more individual by terrorist acts is already to begin to exterminate the society.
Hence, it is just, deemed and proper to sentence terrorist to death as it is
considered self-defense of the state.

A government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible

terrorists to death will find its citizens at the mercy of terrorists who find nothing
wrong with putting innocent people to death.

According to the Global Peace Index 2015 report, terrorism in the

Philippines is intrinsically tied with separatist claims by people living in provinces
in Southern Philippines. In a study conducted by Shmuel Bar entitled the
Religious sources of Islamic Terrorism he noted that while terrorism even in the
form of suicide attacks is not an Islamic phenomenon by definition, it cannot be
ignored that the lions share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in
recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. Therefore, it cannot be
ignored that terrorists in the country work with false ideology, the Abu Sayaf itself
advocates that war is a necessity. And once a person is indoctrinated by this
false ideology, there is no doubt that such person is very much willing to claim
thousands of innocent peoples lives, thats a reality that we must accept.
Ultimately, death penalty of the crime of terrorism is only appropriate due to the
alarming upsurge of such crime which has resulted not only in the loss of human
lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nations efforts
towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same
time has undermined the peoples faith in the government and the latters ability
to maintain peace and order in the country.
B.

I dont think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I dont
think thats right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it
saves other peoples lives. George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United
States of America from 2001 to 2009

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that
balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the
murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that
murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind. Retribution has its
basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to
take an "eye for an eye" and a life for a life. For the most cruel and heinous
crime such as terrorism involve mass casualties and affect the international
community. They cause widespread fear among many populations and disrupt
daily life. For example, after September 11th, the military deployed tanks on the
Coronado Bridge to guard against the possibility of near future threats of
terrorism. In the case of terrorism, there are a lot of victims that die, and many of
their friends and relatives who face emotional consequences in the long term.
Beyond the emotional consequences of such an attack, there are unspeakable
economic repercussions too. This means a terrorist attack or other war crime is a
political inconvenience, affects the work day of many citizens, and shifts the
populations focus from productivity to protection.

Louis P. Pojman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at West Point

Military Academy, in an essay titled "Why the Death Penalty is Morally
Permissible," from Adam Bedaus' 2004 book titled Debating the Death Penalty:
Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make
Their Best Case, wrote: People often confuse retribution with revenge.
Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what
he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal
deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime. Retributivism is not based
on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may accompany the
punishment). Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be
punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her
crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply
regret having to carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted.

Historically, capital punishment has been used in almost every part of the
world. Based on the global overview, taken from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country, there are still
countries who believed that death penalty works on them as part of their judicial
system. Below shows the use of capital punishment all over the globe and is
usually divided into the four categories. As of 1 April 2017, of the 195
independent states which are UN members or have UN observer status:
55 retain it in both law and practice; 31 have abolished it de facto, namely,
according to Amnesty International standards, that they have not executed
anyone during the last 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established
practice of not carrying out executions; 6 have abolished it, but retain it for
exceptional or special circumstances (such as crimes committed in wartime);
103 have abolished it for all crimes. Currently, the large majority of countries has
either abolished or discontinued the practice. However, the number does not
automatically mean that while majority of countries abolished or discontinued it
for all crimes, also mean that it is considered to be right, moral and justified.
Believing that majority will always be right is a questionable and debatable belief,
as it may be a false assumption thus, should be acknowledged that the majority
itself will change over time, as well their belief.
 A person acted immorally wrong deserves death penalty, as believed by
the 55 countries aforementioned, on the basis that killing one person means
deserving to be killed in return, then an evil committed by terrorist, killing many
people, definitely deserves death. This is a basic mathematical argument. It is
still not even equal, because the criminal can only be punished once whereas the
victims and all those emotionally impacted by the crime continue to suffer.
Terrorism as one the most cruel and heinous crime, the ones for which death
penalty should be applied, deserve the worst punishment under our system of
law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the
value society places on protecting lives.

Acts of terrorism has greatly affected multiple countries, including the United
States. The horrific events that took place on 9/11 left the American people
shocked, devastated, and furious. The September 11 attacks (also referred to
as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist
group Al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11,
2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at
least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage and $3 trillion in total
costs.

C.

According to a study published in the Ateneo Law Journal, the Supreme

Court found that 651 out of 907 death penalty cases in between 1993 and 2004
were in fact wrongful convictions. These cases were either commuted to life
sentences or dropped altogether after the abolition of capital punishment in 2006.

Senator Kiko Panglinan an anti-death penalty advocate said in a public

hearing held at the University of San Carlos (USC) Law School that there is one
court in Cebu handling 3000 cases. It is always the argument of the anti-death
penalty advocates that capital punishment cannot properly be implemented in the
country with the current corrupt, flawed and faulty justice system. To address this
issue, the affirmative side proposes the creation of Special Court with exclusive
jurisdiction to try and heard cases of terrorism. With this the dilemma that an
innocent person might be a victim of faulty conviction of death penalty would
surely be erased. Because it is our contention that cases of terrorism will only be
filed with the created special court, hence, such cases will thoroughly be
examined based on facts, evidence and prevailing laws. Furthermore, there is no
legal obstacle in the creation of said special court since it is in accordance with
Sec 1, Article VII of the Constitution which provides that the judicial power shall
be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. Clearly, the creation of special court is not
prohibited in the constitution as long as there is a law passed by Congress for the
creation of the same.

D.

Congress has the ground to re-impose Death Penalty. The 1987

Constitution allows the Capital Punishment to be implemented if there are
compelling reasons to do so. This has been one of the standing ground of the
Government in giving life again to Death penalty. The Constitution has not
prohibited totally the Congress from passing a bill to implement it.

Section 19, Article III reads: "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."

Leyte 3rd District Representative Vicente Veloso, in an interview from

Rappler says Death Penalty seeks to punish individuals who repeatedly commit
heinous crimes. The problem really is we have a guy who keeps on raping,
kidnapping for ransom people repeatedly, he commits the same offenses," he
said. The Congressman compared them as Satan. He added, If the person in
front of you is Satan himself, oh my God! Give the government the option to kill
him. That is Satan already! This kind of acts and this kind of people should be
eradicated.

Since the framers of Constitution did not prohibit on giving back life to the
capital punishment, it now rest on the Congress to pass the bill to reinstitute it.
And its for the welfare or the voice of the Filipino people that bills are passed.

In a recent Poll conducted by INQUIRER.net last May 17, 2016, the

countrys leading news publisher, readers were in favor of reviving the death
penalty in the Philippines, according to the results of INQUIRER.nets Facebook
and Twitter polls.

In the Facebook poll, 83 percent of 1,434 votes were in favor of bringing back
the death penalty while only 17 percent opposed it. On Twitter, 67
percent of 3,474 favored the revival of the death penalty while 33 percent
expressed opposition.
Result of the
survey

The evidences
above are living proof on the peoples acceptance of the penalty. There is a huge
discrepancy from those who said No against those who said Yes to it. This is a
sign that the Congress should heed the calling of the majority since it is there
primary duty to heed the voice and the welfare of the Filipino people.

III- Summary and Conclusion

We the affirmative side value the right to life of every individual, hence, in
order to address this issue it is our proposition that once death is imposed it must
be automatically be suspended for a period of three years and an extensive
assessment by an expert must be conducted.

As a final point in the re-imposition of the Death Penalty, let us be guided by

the maxim, salus populi est suprema lex" the welfare of the people is the
supreme law the safety of the greater many, should be greater above
everything else. We must abide by the foundations of our legal system and that
the law must govern utterly even if it is severe. Dura Lex Sed Lex, The law may
be harsh but it is the law. Let it reign supreme.

Group members:
1. Joshua Camacho
2. David Asebias
3. Krystelle Joy A. Palconite