EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S. l4^o. 
1 8 7
vfUTN.
■^ ^ ( © ffic r  o( tijr is  'u c u tty
■19 JUL-2 PI :38
RECEI1' D S'
Introduced by SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
AN ACT
PUNISHING EXTRAORDINARY HEINOUS CRIMES W ITH THE
PENALIY OF QUALIFIED RECLUSION PERPETUA, THEREBY 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN 
ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DFA.TH PENALTY IN THE 
PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Article 2, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, 
and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential 
for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
Article 3, Section 19 (1) of the same Constitution further provides that:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman 
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, 
unless, fo r com pelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the 
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already 
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)
Peace and order is a cornerstone of our democracy. A functioning and effective 
criminal justice system, as a key component of peace and order, is one that effectively 
deters the commission of crime, punishes the offenders commensurate to their crime, 
and rehabilitates those imprisoned for their actions.
As a measure of retributive justice, we enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 7659, 
otherwise known as An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, 
Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special 
Penal Laws, And for Other Purposes, to establish our national policy to enforce


retributive justice against those who commit heinous crimes. However, following the 
international trend towards respecting the sanctity of human life and the abolition of 
death penalty, we enacted R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting the 
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. This law commuted death penalty to 
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as applicable.
However, in a 2018 study spearheaded by the Commission on Human Rights 
(CHR) and conducted by the Social Weather Stations (SWS), it appears that there is 
clamor from certain segments of our society to reinstate the capital punishment with 
nearly six (6) in every ten (10) Filipinos agreeing that the death penalty should be 
reinstated in the belief that it will provide an effective deterrent against heinous 
crimed. In the Duterte administration’s drive to rid society of the illegal drug menace, 
the re-imposition of the death penalty is considered a priority legislation and is 
pending consideration in both chambers of Congress, with the House of 
Representatives approving on third and final reading the bill re-imposing death 
penalty but only for drug-related offenses back in 2017.
As the efficacy and morality of the death penalty is questionable at best, there 
is a need to legislate an alternative punishment against e.xtraordinary heinous crimes. 
The penalty of qualified reclusion perpetua, which carries with it an imprisonment of 
fifty (50) years without parole and a fine of P5,000,000.00, will send a clear message 
that we, as a country, do not take heinous crimes lightly nor do we condone those 
who perpetrate them.
Death penalty as a deterrence has long been debunked by countless studies. 
The consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any 
significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.2 The same study 
reveals that criminologists believe that “politicians support the death penalty as a 
symbolic way to show that they are tough on crime.” Furthermore, they posit that 
“debates about the death penalty distract politicians from focusing on ‘real’ solutions 
to crime. ”3
Majority of Filipinos want death penalty brought back, SWS poll finds, 10 October 2018, retrieved from 
https://www.philstar.eom/headlines/2018/10/10/1858915/niajority-filipinos-want-death-penalty-brought-back-sws-poll-finds 
■ Radelet, Michael L. & Lacock, Tracy L. (2009), Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading 
Criminologists, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.
(URL: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdO 
' Radelet, supra.


Unfortunately, death penalty tends to be imposed more on the poor than those 
who are able to afford full-time lawyers. To quote a U.S. Circuit Court decision, “[t]he 
Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, does not require that the accused, even in 
a capital case, be represented by able or effective counsel. ... Consequently, accused 
persons who are represented by “not-legally-ineffective” lawyers may be condemned 
to die when the same accused, if represented by effective counsel, would receive at 
least the clemency of a life sentence.”^ Being poor means being represented by a 
court-appointed lawyer who may lack the skill, resources, and, in some cases, even 
the inclination to provide a competent defense. Once convicted and sentenced, many 
are unable to challenge their convictions and sentences in post-conviction 
proceedings because they have no lawyer.s
To impose death penalty at a time when the Philippine justice system is still 
plagued by perceived corruption and inefficiency will open our country to irreversible 
errors and the possibility of executing innocent citizens. For instance, on the issue of 
wrongful convictions, the Supreme Court acknowledged in GR No. 147678-87 
{People V. Mateo, July 7, 2004) that the judicial error rate on death penalty cases is 
71.77 percent* 5 6 7.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s review of capital cases up to January 2006 found 
that four (4) out of five (5) death inmates have been wrongfully sentenced by the 
various lower courts. Of the 1,513 cases reviewed, almost half (645) were modified 
(from death penalty to reclusion perpetua or indeterminate sentence), close to a 
third (456) were transferred to the Court of Appeals, 69 were acquitted, and 37 were 
remanded for further proceedings. Only 270 cases (18 percent) were affirmed by the 
high court.7
Likewise, it should be emphasized that the Philippines is a signatory to the 
Second Optional Protocol8 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
■* Riles V. McCorter, 799 F.2d 947, 955 (5th Cir. 1986) (Rubin, J., concurring).
5 Bright, Stephen J. (2002), Race, Poverty, the Death Penalty, and the Responsibility of the Legal Profession, Seattle Journal 
for Social Justice.
(URL: http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=sjsj)
6 Debate on death penalty rages anew, 17 April 2006, retrieved from http://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/l7/debate-on-death- 
penalty-rages-anew
7 Debate on death penalty rages anew, 17 April 2(X)6, retrieved from http://pcij.org/blog/2006/04/l7/debate-on-death- 
penalty-rages-anew
8 The Second Optional Protocal is the only international treaty of worldwide scope to prohibit executions and to provide for 
total abolition of the death penalty.


If we restore the death penalty, we will be in clear breach of both the Covenant and 
the Protocol.
On the other hand, legislating commensurate punishment against heinous 
crime offenders other than death penalty will not only be legal and moral, but also 
more practical. Death penalty cases are subject to automatic review by the Supreme 
Court.9 It is a process which places extra burden to our public prosecutors and 
defendants, our courts, and the litigants but is necessary because of our country’s 
commitment to the sanctity of life by affording another layer of due process against 
those already convicted of the crime. Harsher penalties short of death penalty would 
forgo this layer and result in shorter litigation for heinous crime cases.
This bill provides us with a measure and a statement against heinous crimes 
without having to deal with the problems that beset the death penalty system. This 
bill establishes the penalty of qualified reclusion perpetua as punishment for those 
convicted of extraordinary heinous crimes.
On the strong belief that qualified reclusion perpetua will be an effective 
antidote to death penalty, the passage of this important bill is earnestly sought.
LEILA M. DE L
Revised Penal Code, Art. 47.


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S. No. 
1 8 7
iB ffiir o( tlir s r c . t u iy
*19 JUL-2 PI 38
RECEIVi!) 3V.
Introduced by SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
AN ACT
PUNISHING EXTRAORDINARY HEINOUS CRIMES W ITH THE 
PENALTY OF QUALIFIED RECLUSION PERPETUA, THEREBY 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9346, OTHERW ISE KNOWN AS AN 
ACT PROHIBITING THE IM POSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE 
PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
1 
Section 1. Short Title. -  This Act shall be known as the “Qualified Reclusion
2 
Perpetua Act.”
3 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. -  It is a declared policy of the State to exert all
4 
means towards the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty,
5 
and property, and the promotion of the general welfare, which are essential for the
6 
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. Towards this end, the
7 
State shall adopt a policy of imposing a punishment commensurate to the nature of
8 
the crime committed. However, it shall remain the policy of the State to uphold the
9 
sanctity of life and refrain from imposing death penalty as a means of retribution.
10 
Sec. 3. Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, otherwise knowTi as “An Act
11 
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”, is hereby amended
12 
to read, as follows:
13 
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be
14 
imposed EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 3
15 
AND 4 OF THIS ACT:


. 
. (
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law 
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of 
the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law 
violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the 
penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Sec. 4. Insert a new Section 3 in R.A. No. 9346, which shall read as follows:
SECTION 
3. 
EXTRAORDINARY 
HEINOUS 
CRIMES. 
-  
EXTRAORDINARY 
HEINOUS 
CRIMES ARE CRIMES W HICH ARE GRIEVOUS,
ODIOUS 
AND 
HATEFUL 
OFFENSES 
AND 
W HICH, BY REASON OF TH EIR INHERENT OR 
MANIFEST 
W ICKEDNESS, 
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. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. TREASON UNDER REVISED PENAL CODE 
(RPC) ART. 114;
2. PIRACY UNDER RPC, ARTICLES 122 AND 123
3. MURDER UNDER RPC, ART. 248;
4. INFANTICIDE UNDER RPC, ART. 255;
5. KIDNAPPING 
AND 
SERIOUS 
ILLEGAL 
DETENTION UNDER RPC, ART. 267;
6. ROBBERY W ITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR 
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS UNDER RPC,
ART. 294;
7. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON UNDER RPC, ART.
320;
8. RAPE UNDER RPC, ART. 266-A;


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
9- PLUNDER UNDER SECTION 2 OF REPUBLIC 
ACT NO. 7080, OTHERW ISE KNOWN AS AN 
ACT 
DEFINING 
AND 
PENALIZING 
THE 
CRIME OF PLUNDER;
10. 
VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 
12, 16, 17, AND 18 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, 
OTHERW ISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS 
DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REGARDLESS OF 
AMOUNT, OR QUALITY OR CHEMICALS OR 
DRUGS, INCLUDING THE INSTRUMENT FOR 
THE MANUFACTURE THEREOF;
11. CARNAPPING UNDER SEC. 14 OF REPUBLIC 
ACT NO. 6539;
12. ACTS OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, AS 
DEFINED 
IN 
REPUBLIC 
ACT. 
9208 
AS 
AMENDED, W HEN IT INVOLVES CHILDREN 
OR COMMITTED BY A SYNDICATE;
13. ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST W OMEN AS 
DEFINED 
IN 
REPUBLIC ACT 
NO. 
9262 
W HICH RESULT IN THE DEATH OF WOMAN, 
HER CHILD, OR COMMON CHILD W ITH THE 
OFFENDER, OR RESULTS IN INSANITY;
14. VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851, 
OTHERW ISE KNOWN AS PH ILIPPIN E ACT 
ON 
CRIMES 
AGAINST 
INTERNATIONAL 
HUMANITARIAN 
LAW, 
GENOCIDE, 
AND 
OTHER 
CRIMES 
AGAINST 
HUMANITY, 
UNDER SECTION 4(A) 1-3 ON WAR CRIMES; 
ALL ACTS OF GENOCIDE IN SECTION 5; AND 
ALL 
ACTS 
THAT 
CONSTITUTE 
CRIMES 
AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER SECTION 6;


1 
15. ACTS OF TORTURE IDENTIFIED IN SECTION
2 
14 (A), 1-5, OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9745 OR
3 
THE ANTI-TORTURE ACT OF 2009; AND
4 
16. ACTS OF TERRORISM AS IDENTIFIED IN
5 
SECTION 3 OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 OR
6 
THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007;
7 
Sec. 5. Insert a new Section 4 in R.A. No. 9346, which shall read as follows:
8 
SECTION 4. PENALTY FOR EXTRAORDINARY
9 
HEINOUS 
CRIMES. 
-  
THE 
PENALTY 
FOR
10 
EXTRAORDINARY HEINOUS CRIMES SHALL BE
11 
QUALIFIED RECLUSION PERPETUA, W HICH
12 
SHALL BE DEFINED AS IMPRISONMENT FOR A
13 
PERIOD OF FIFTY (50) YEARS, W ITH NO
14 
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE UNDER REPUBLIC
15 
ACT NO. 4103, AS AMENDED, OTHERW ISE
16 
KNOWN AS THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
17 
LAW, AND FINE OF FIVE MILLION PESOS
18 
(P5,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 ).
19 
Sec. 6. The succeeding sections of R.A. No. 9346 shall be renumbered
20 
accordingly.
21 
Sec. 7. Separability Clause. -  If any provision or part hereof, is held invalid or
22 
unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected
23 
shall remain valid and subsisting.
24 
Sec. 8. Repealing Clause. -  Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive
25 
order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or is
26 
inconsistent with the provision of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended
27 
accordingly.
28 
Sec. 9. Ejfectivity Clause. -  This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
29 
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,