Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

First Regular Session

a ow 230
HOUSE BILL NO.

Astredoced by Reps. Rene M. Velarde, Christian M. Sefieres and Eduardo C. Ziakita

EXPLANATORY NOTE
‘This bill seeks to abolish the death penalty for the following reasons:

1. The individual is the most important element of the state, The key fo the
continued development and stability of the Republic is the protection and
improvement of life of its citizen from the time of his or her birth all the way
to his or her natural death. The death penalty violates the right to life. It is the
ultimate cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment that can befall an
individual.

2. The Deterrence Argument states that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.
This is not the case as has been proven by scientific studies (Amnesty
International 2003). The most recent United Nations sponsored survey of
research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rate
has conctuded that “it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital
punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat
and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” A
study made by the University of the Philippines Department of Sociology
affirms this theory — that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

3. In recent years, governments have adopted international treaties commiting
themselves to not having the death penalty. Four such treaties now exist: The
Second Optional Protocol to the international Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which has now been ratified by 49 states; the Protocol to the American
Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty; Protocol No. 13
to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms; and Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on
Human Rights. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and the Protocol to the American Convention on
Human Rights provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow



states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an
Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides for

the total abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (Amnesty
International 2003).

4. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. In the United States,
more than a hundred prisoners have been released from death row since 1973
after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were
sentenced to death. The statistics would further show that other American
prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

5. Over half the countries in the world or a total of 112 countries have now
abolished the death penalty in law or practice. During the past decade, more
than three countries a year on the average have abolished the death penalty.

Accordingly, approval of this measure is eamestly sought

RENE M. VELARDE

CHRISTIAN M. SENERES

EDUARDO C. ZIALCITA


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

First Regular Session

230

HOUSE BITL NO:

AN ACT
ABOLISHING THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Death, as a penalty, is hereby abolished in the Philippines. For this
purpose, Articles 25, 40, 70, 71, 74 of the Revised Penal Code a are expressly repealed,
amended or modified insofar as they provide for the penalty of death as a principal
penalty and for its accessory penalties under the Revised Penal Code. All other special
statutes that provide for the penalty of death shall be considered amended and modified
accordingly. Should the penalty of death be provided as the sole and mandatory penalty
in the special penal statute or the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be substituted
with that of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as the case may be.

SEC, 2. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:

“Article 63, Rules for the Application of indivisible Pewalties, —~

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall

be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating

circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.”



[In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in
the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shal! be applied.

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty
shalt be applied,

4, When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one
another in consideration of their number and importance, with the
preceding rules according to the result of such compensation. ]

SEC. 3. Republic Act No. 7659, as amended by Republic Act No. 8177, and all
other laws inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

SEC. 4, This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2)
newspapers of national circulation,

Approved.