Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 13!"1 #anua$% 1&' 1&&&
(EO EC)EGARA*' petitione$'
+s.
SECRETAR* O, #UST-CE' ET AL.' $espon.ents.
R E S O ( U T - O N

PUNO' J.:
For resolution are public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of this
Court dated January 4, 1990 teporarily restraining the e!ecution of petitioner and "uppleental
Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration# $t is the subission of public respondents that%
1# &he 'ecision in this case ha(ing becoe final and e!ecutory, its e!ecution
enters the e!clusi(e abit of authority of the e!ecuti(e authority# &he issuance of
the &R) ay be construed as trenching on that sphere of e!ecuti(e authority*
+# &he issuance of the teporary restraining order # # # creates dangerous
precedent as there ,ill ne(er be an end to litigation because there is al,ays a
possibility that Congress ay repeal a la,#
-# Congress had earlier deliberated e!tensi(ely on the death penalty bill# &o be
certain, ,hate(er .uestion ay no, be raised on the 'eath /enalty 0a, before
the present Congress ,ithin the 12onth period gi(en by this 3onorable Court
had in all probability been fully debated upon # # #
4. Under the tie honored maxim lex futuro, judex praeterito, the la, loo4s for,ard
,hile the 5udge loo4s at the past, # # # the 3onorable Court in issuing the &R) has
transcended its po,er of 5udicial re(ie,#
6# 7t this oent, certain circustances8super(ening e(ents transpired to the
effect that the repeal or odification of the la, iposing death penalty has
becoe nil, to ,it%
a# &he public pronounceent of /resident 9strada that he ,ill (eto any la,
iposing the death penalty in(ol(ing heinous cries#
b. &he resolution of Congressan :ole;, et al#, that they are against the
repeal of the la,*
c# &he fact that "enator Roco's resolution to repeal the la, only bears his
signature and that of "enator /ientel#
$n their "uppleental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, public respondents attached
a copy of 3ouse Resolution <o# 1+9 introduced by Congressan :ole; entitled =Resolution
e!pressing the sense of the 3ouse of Representati(e to re5ect any o(e to re(ie, Republic 7ct
<o# >169 ,hich pro(ided for the re2iposition of death penalty, notifying the "enate, the Judiciary
and the 9!ecuti(e 'epartent of the position of the 3ouse of Representati(e on this atter, and
urging the /resident to e!haust all eans under the la, to iediately ipleent the death
penalty la,#= &he Resolution ,as concurred in by one hundred thirteen ?11-@ congressan#
$n their Consolidated Coent, petitioner contends% ?1@ the stay order# # # is ,ithin the scope of
5udicial po,er and duty and does not trench on e!ecuti(e po,ers nor on congressional
prerogati(es* ?+@ the e!ercise by this Court of its po,er to stay e!ecution ,as reasonable* ?-@ the
Court did not lose 5urisdiction to address incidental atters in(ol(ed or arising fro the petition*
?4@ public respondents are estopped fro challenging the Court's 5urisdiction* and ?6@ there is no
certainty that the la, on capital punishent ,ill not be repealed or odified until Congress
con(enes and considers all the (arious resolutions and bills filed before it#
/refatorily, the Court li4es to ephasi;e that the instant otions concern atters that are not
incidents in :#R# <o# 11>4>+, ,here the death penalty ,as iposed on petitioner on autoatic
re(ie, of his con(iction by this Court# &he instant otions ,ere filed in this case, :#R# <o#
1-+101, ,here the constitutionality of R#7# <o# A1>> ?0ethal $n5ection 0a,@ and its ipleenting
rules and regulations ,as assailed by petitioner# For this reason, the Court in its Resolution of
January 4, 1999 erely noted the Motion to "et 7side of Rodessa =Baby= R# 9chegaray dated
January >, 1999 and 9ntry of 7ppearance of her counsel dated January 6, 1999# Clearly, she has
no legal standing to inter(ene in the case at bar, let alone the fact that the interest of the "tate is
properly represented by the "olicitor :eneral#
Ce shall no, resol(e the basic issues raised by the public respondents#
$
First# Ce do not agree ,ith the s,eeping subission of the public respondents that this Court lost
its 5urisdiction o(er the case at bar and hence can no longer restrain the e!ecution of the
petitioner# )b(iously, public respondents are in(o4ing the rule that final 5udgents can no longer
be altered in accord ,ith the principle that =it is 5ust as iportant that there should be a place to
end as there should be a place to begin litigation#=
1
&o start ,ith, the Court is not changing e(en
a coa of its final 'ecision# $t is appropriate to e!aine ,ith precision the etes and bounds of
the 'ecision of this Court that becae final# &hese etes and bounds are clearly spelled out in
the 9ntry of Judgent in this case, viz%
9<&RD )F JU':M9<&
&his is to certify that on October 12, 1998 a decision rendered in the abo(e2
entitled case ,as filed in this )ffice, the dispositi(e part of ,hich reads as
follo,s%
C39R9F)R9, the petition is '9<$9' insofar as petitioner
see4s to declare the assailed statute ?Republic 7ct <o# A1>>@ as
unconstitutional* but :R7<&9' insofar as "ections 1> and 19 of
the Rules and Regulations to $pleent Republic 7ct <o# A1>>
are concerned, ,hich are hereby declared $<E70$' because ?a@
"ection 1> contra(enes 7rticle A- of the Re(ised /enal Code, as
aended by "ection +6 of Republic 7ct <o# >169* and ?b@
"ection 19 fails to pro(ide for re(ie, and appro(al of the 0ethal
$n5ection Manual by the "ecretary of Justice, and un5ustifiably
a4es the anual confidential, hence una(ailable to interested
parties including the accused8con(ict and counsel# Respondents
are hereby en5oined fro enforcing and ipleenting Republic
7ct <o# A1>> until the aforesaid "ections 1> and 19 of the Rules
and Regulations to $pleent Republic 7ct <o# A1>> are
appropriately aended, re(ised and8or corrected in accordance
,ith this 'ecision#
") )R'9R9'#
and that the sae has, on November 1, 1988 becoe final and e!ecutory and is
hereby recorded in the Boo4 of 9ntries of Judgent#
Manila, /hilippine#
C
l
e
r
4

o
f

C
o
u
r
t
B
y
%

?
"
:
'
@

&
9
R
9
"
$
&
7

:
#

'
$
M
7
$
"
$
/
7
c
t
i
n
g

C
h
i
e
f
J
u
d
i
c
i
a
l
R
e
c
o
r
d
s

)
f
f
i
c
e
&he records ,ill sho, that before the 9ntry of Judgent, the "ecretary of Justice, the 3onorable
"erafin Cue(as, filed ,ith this Court on )ctober +1, 199A a Copliance ,here he subitted the
7ended Rules and Regulations ipleenting R#7# <o# A1>> in copliance ,ith our 'ecision#
)n )ctober +A, 199A, "ecretary Cue(as subitted a Manifestation inforing the Court that he
has caused the publication of the said 7ended Rules and Regulations as re.uired by the
7dinistrati(e Code# $t is crystalline that the 'ecision of this Court that becae final and
unalterable andated% ?1@ that R#7# <o# A1>> is not unconstitutional* ?+@ that sections 1> and 19
of the Rules and Regulations to $pleent R#7# <o# A1>> are in(alid, and ?-@ R#7# <o# A1>>
cannot be enforced and ipleented until sections 1> and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to
$pleent R#7# <o# A1>> are aended# $t is also daylight clear that this 'ecision ,as not altered
a ,hit by this Court# Contrary to the subission of the "olicitor :eneral, the rule on finality of
5udgent cannot di(est this Court of its 5urisdiction to e!ecute and enforce the sae 5udgent#
Retired Justice Cailo Fuiason synthesi;ed the ,ell established 5urisprudence on this issue as
follo,s%
+
!!! !!! !!!
the finality of a 5udgent does not ean that the Court has lost all its po,ers nor
the case# By the finality of the 5udgent, ,hat the court loses is its 5urisdiction to
aend, odify or alter the sae# 9(en after the 5udgent has becoe final the
court retains its 5urisdiction to e!ecute and enforce it#
-
&here is a difference
bet,een the 5urisdiction of the court to e!ecute its 5udgent and its 5urisdiction to
aend, odify or alter the sae# &he forer continues e(en after the 5udgent
has becoe final for the purpose of enforceent of 5udgent* the latter
terinates ,hen the 5udgent becoes final#
4
# # # For after the 5udgent has
becoe final facts and circustances ay transpire ,hich can render the
e!ecution un5ust or ipossible#
6
$n truth, the arguents of the "olicitor :eneral has long been re5ected by this Court# 7s aptly
pointed out by the petitioner, as early as 1916, this Court has une.ui(ocably ruled in the case
of Director of Prisons v. Jude of !irst "nstance,
1
viz%
&his "upree Court has repeatedly declared in (arious decisions, ,hich
constitute 5urisprudence on the sub5ect, that in criinal cases, after the sentence
has been pronounced and the period for reopening the sae cannot change or
alter its 5udgent, as its 5urisdiction has terinated # # # Chen in cases of appeal
or re(ie, the cause has been returned thereto for e!ecution, in the e(ent that the
5udgent has been affired, it perfors a inisterial duty in issuing the proper
order# But it does not follo, fro this cessation of functions on the part of the
court ,ith reference to the ending of the cause that the 5udicial authority
terinates by ha(ing then passed copletely to the 9!ecuti(e# &he particulars of
the e!ecution itself, ,hich are certainly not al,ays included in the 5udgent and
,rit of e!ecution, in any e(ent are absolutely under the control of the 5udicial
authority, ,hile the e!ecuti(e has no po,er o(er the person of the con(ict e!cept
to pro(ide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon#
:etting do,n to the solution of the .uestion in the case at bar, ,hich is that of
e!ecution of a capital sentence, it ust be accepted as a hypothesis that
postponeent of the date can be re.uested# &here can be no dispute on this
point# $t is a ,ell24no,n principle that not,ithstanding the order of e!ecution and
the e!ecutory nature thereof on the date set or at the proper tie, the date
therefor can be postponed, e(en in sentences of death# Under the coon la,
this postponeent can be ordered in three ,ays% ?1@ By coand of the Ging*
?+@ by discretion ?arbitrio@ of the court* and ?-@ by andate of the la,# $t is
sufficient to state this principle of the coon la, to render ipossible that
assertion in absolute ters that after the con(ict has once been placed in 5ail the
trial court can not reopen the case to in(estigate the facts that sho, the need for
postponeent# $f one of the ,ays is by direction of the court, it is ac4no,ledged
that e(en after the date of the e!ecution has been fi!ed, and not,ithstanding the
general rule that after the ?court@ has perfored its inisterial duty of ordering
the e!ecution # # # and its part is ended, if ho,e(er a circustance arises that
ought to delay the e!ecution, and there is an iperati(e duty to in(estigate the
eergency and to order a postponeent# &hen the .uestion arises as to ,ho
the application for postponing the e!ecution ought to be addressed ,hile the
circustances is under in(estigation and so to ,ho has 5urisdiction to a4e the
in(estigation#
&he po,er to control the e!ecution of its decision is an essential aspect of 5urisdiction# $t cannot
be the sub5ect of substantial subtraction for our Constitution
>
(ests the entirety of 5udicial po,er
in one "upree Court and in such lo,er courts as ay be established by la,# &o be sure, the
iportant part of a litigation, ,hether ci(il or criinal, is the process of e!ecution of decisions
,here super(ening e(ents ay change the circustance of the parties and copel courts to
inter(ene and ad5ust the rights of the litigants to pre(ent unfairness# $t is because of these
unforseen, super(ening contingencies that courts ha(e been conceded the inherent and
necessary po,er of control of its processes and orders to a4e the conforable to la, and
5ustice#
A
For this purpose, "ection 1 of Rule 1-6 pro(ides that =,hen by la, 5urisdiction is
conferred on a court or 5udicial officer, all au!iliary ,rits, processes and other eans necessary to
carry it into effect ay be eployed by such court or officer and if the procedure to be follo,ed in
the e!ercise of such 5urisdiction is not specifically pointed out by la, or by these rules, any
suitable process or ode of proceeding ay be adopted ,hich appears conforable to the spirit
of said la, or rules#= $t bears repeating that ,hat the Court restrained teporarily is the e!ecution
of its o,n 'ecision to gi(e it reasonable tie to chec4 its fairness in light of super(ening e(ents in
Congress as alleged by petitioner# &he Court, contrary to popular isipression, did not restrain
the effecti(ity of a la, enacted by Congress#1#$p%i1.n&t
&he ore dis.uieting diension of the subission of the public respondents that this Court has
no 5urisdiction to restrain the e!ecution of petitioner is that it can diinish the independence of the
5udiciary# "ince the iplant of republicanis in our soil, our courts ha(e been conceded the
5urisdiction to enforce their final decisions# $n accord ,ith this un.uestioned 5urisdiction, this Court
proulgated rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure ,hich, aong others, spelled out
the rules on e!ecution of 5udgents# &hese rules are all predicated on the assuption that courts
ha(e the inherent, necessary and incidental po,er to control and super(ise the process of
e!ecution of their decisions# Rule -9 go(erns e!ecution, satisfaction and effects of 5udgents in
ci(il cases# Rule 1+0 go(erns 5udgents in criinal cases# $t should be stressed that the po,er to
proulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure ,as granted by our Constitutions to this
Court to enhance its independence, for in the ,ords of Justice $sagani Cru; =,ithout
independence and integrity, courts ,ill lose that popular trust so essential to the aintenance of
their (igor as chapions of 5ustice#=
9
3ence, our Constitutions continuously (ested this po,er to
this Court for it enhances its independence# Under the 19-6 Constitution, the po,er of this Court
to proulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure ,as granted but it appeared to
be co2e!istent ,ith legislati(e po,er for it ,as sub5ect to the po,er of Congress to repeal, alter or
suppleent# &hus, its "ection 1-, 7rticle E$$$ pro(ides%
"ec#1-# &he "upree Court shall ha(e the po,er to proulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the adission to the practice
of la,# "aid rules shall be unifor for all courts of the sae grade and shall not
diinish, increase, or odify substanti(e rights# &he e!isting la,s on pleading,
practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules
of Court, sub5ect to the po,er of the "upree Court to alter and odify the
sae# &he Congress ha(e the po,er to repeal, alter or suppleent the rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the adission to the practice
of la, in the /hilippines#
&he said po,er of Congress, ho,e(er, is not as absolute as it ay appear on its surface# $n $n re
Cunanan
10
Congress in the e!ercise of its po,er to aend rules of the "upree Court regarding
adission to the practice of la,, enacted the Bar Flun4ers 7ct of 196-
11
,hich considered as a
passing grade, the a(erage of >0H in the bar e!ainations after July 4, 1941 up to 7ugust 1961
and >1H in the 196+ bar e!ainations# &his Court struc4 do,n the la, as unconstitutional# $n
his ponencia, Mr# Justice 'io4no held that = # # # the disputed la, is not a legislation* it is a
5udgent I a 5udgent proulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar
candidates concerned* and although this Court certainly can re(o4e these 5udgents e(en no,,
for 5ustifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislati(e nor
e!ecuti(e departent, that ay do so# 7ny attept on the part of these departent ,ould be a
clear usurpation of its function, as is the case ,ith the la, in .uestion#=
1+
&he (enerable 5urist
further ruled% =$t is ob(ious, therefore, that the ultiate po,er to grant license for the practice of
la, belongs e!clusi(ely to this Court, and the la, passed by Congress on the atter is of
perissi(e character, or as other authorities say, erely to fi! the iniu conditions for the
license#= By its ruling, this Court .ualified the absolutist tone of the po,er of Congress to =repeal,
alter or suppleent the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the adission to
the practice of la, in the /hilippines#
&he ruling of this Court in $n re Cunanan ,as not changed by the 19>- Constitution# For the 19>-
Constitution reiterated the po,er of this Court =to proulgate rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts, # # # ,hich, ho,e(er, ay be repealed, altered or suppleented by
the Batasang /abansa # # # #= More copletely, "ection 6?+@6 of its 7rticle J pro(ided%
!!! !!! !!!
"ec#6# &he "upree Court shall ha(e the follo,ing po,ers#
!!! !!! !!!
?6@ /roulgate rules concerning pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the
adission to the practice of la,, and the
integration of the Bar, ,hich, ho,e(er, ay be
repealed, altered, or suppleented by the
Batasang /abansa# "uch rules shall pro(ide a
siplified and ine!pensi(e procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be unifor for
all courts of the sae grade, and shall not
diinish, increase, or odify substanti(e rights#
Cell ,orth noting is that the 19>- Constitution further strengthened the independence of the
5udiciary by gi(ing to it the additional po,er to proulgate rules go(erning the integration of the
Bar#
1-
&he 19A> Constitution olded an e(en stronger and ore independent 5udiciary# 7ong others, it
enhanced the rule a4ing po,er of this Court# $ts "ection 6?6@, 7rticle E$$$ pro(ides%
!!! !!! !!!
"ec# 6# &he "upree Court shall ha(e the follo,ing po,ers%
!!! !!! !!!
?6@ /roulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforceent of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
the adission to the practice of la,, the
$ntegrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underpri(ileged# "uch rules shall pro(ide a
siplified and ine!pensi(e procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be unifor for
all courts of the sae grade, and shall not
diinish, increase, or odify substanti(e rights#
Rules of procedure of special courts and .uasi2
5udicial bodies shall reain effecti(e unless
disappro(ed by the "upree Court#
&he rule a4ing po,er of this Court ,as e!panded# &his Court for the first tie ,as gi(en the
po,er to proulgate rules concerning the protection and enforceent of constitutional rights# &he
Court ,as also granted for the first tie the po,er to disappro(e rules of procedure of special
courts and .uasi25udicial bodies# But ost iportantly, the 19A> Constitution too4 a,ay the po,er
of Congress to repeal, alter, or suppleent rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure# $n
fine, the po,er to proulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by
this Court ,ith Congress, ore so ,ith the 9!ecuti(e# $f the anifest intent of the 19A>
Constitution is to strengthen the independence of the 5udiciary, it is inutile to urge, as public
respondents do, that this Court has no 5urisdiction to control the process of e!ecution of its
decisions, a po,er conceded to it and ,hich it has e!ercised since tie ieorial#
&o be sure, it is too late in the day for public respondents to assail the 5urisdiction of this Court to
control and super(ise the ipleentation of its decision in the case at bar# 7s aforestated, our
'ecision becae final and e!ecutory on <o(eber 1, 199A# &he records re(eal that after
<o(eber 1, 199A, or on 'eceber A, 199A, no less than the "ecretary of Justice recogni;ed the
5urisdiction of this Court by filing a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to copel the trial 5udge, the
3onorable &hela 7# /onferrada, R&C, Br# 104, Fue;on City to pro(ide hi =# # # a certified true
copy of the Carrant of 9!ecution dated <o(eber 1>, 199A bearing the designated e!ecution
day of death con(ict 0eo 9chegaray and allo, ?hi@ to re(eal or announce the contents thereof,
particularly the e!ecution date fi!ed by such trial court to the public ,hen re.uested#= &he
rele(ant portions of the Manifestation and Urgent Motion filed by the "ecretary of Justice
beseeching this Court =to pro(ide the appropriate relief= state%
!!! !!! !!!
6# $nstead of filing a coent on Judge /onferrada's
Manifestation ho,e(er, herein respondent is subitting the
instant Manifestation and Motion ?a@ to stress, inter alia, that the
non2disclosure of the date of e!ecution depri(es herein
respondent of (ital inforation necessary for the e!ercise of his
statutory po,ers, as ,ell as renders nugatory the constitutional
guarantee that recogni;es the people's right to inforation of
public concern, and ?b@ to as4 this 3onorable Court to pro(ide
the appropriate relief#
1# &he non2disclosure of the date of e!ecution depri(es herein
respondent of (ital inforation necessary for the e!ercise of his
po,er of super(ision and control o(er the Bureau of Corrections
pursuant to "ection -9, Chapter A, Boo4 $E of the 7dinistrati(e
Code of 19A>, in relation to &itle $$$, Boo4 $E of such
7dinistrati(e Code, insofar as the enforceent of Republic 7ct
<o# A1>> and the 7ended Rules and Regulations to $pleent
Republic 7ct <o# A1>> is concerned and for the discharge of the
andate of seeing to it that la,s and rules relati(e to the
e!ecution of sentence are faithfully obser(ed#
># )n the other hand, the ,illful oission to re(eal the
inforation about the precise day of e!ecution liits the e!ercise
by the /resident of e!ecuti(e cleency po,ers pursuant to
"ection 19, 7rticle E$$ ?9!ecuti(e 'epartent@ of the 19A>
/hilippine Constitution and 7rticle A1 of the Re(ised /enal Code,
as aended, ,hich pro(ides that the death sentence shall be
carried out =,ithout pre5udice to the e!ercise by the /resident of
his e!ecuti(e po,ers at all times#= ?9phasis supplied@ For
instance, the /resident cannot grant reprie(e, i#e#, postpone the
e!ecution of a sentence to a day certain ?/eople (# Eera, 16 /hil#
61, 110 K19->L@ in the absence of a precise date to rec4on ,ith#
&he e!ercise of such cleency po,er, at this tie, ight e(en
,or4 to the pre5udice of the con(ict and defeat the purpose of the
Constitution and the applicable statute as ,hen the date at
e!ecution set by the /resident ,ould be earlier than that
designated by the court#
A# Moreo(er, the deliberate non2disclosure of inforation about
the date of e!ecution to herein respondent and the public
(iolates "ection >, 7rticle $$$ ?Bill of Rights@ and "ection +A,
7rticle $$ ?'eclaration of /rinciples and "tate /olicies@ of the
19A> /hilippine Constitution ,hich read%
"ec# ># &he right of the people to inforation on atters of public
concern shall be recogni;ed# 7ccess to official records, and to
docuents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as ,ell as to go(ernent research data used as basis
for policy de(elopent shall, be afforded the citi;en, sub5ect to
such liitations as ay be pro(ided by la,#
"ec# +A# "ub5ect to reasonable conditions prescribed by la,, the
"tate adopts and ipleents a policy of full public disclosure of
all transactions in(ol(ing public interest#
9# &he =right to inforation= pro(ision is self2e!ecuting# $t
supplies =the rules by eans of ,hich the right to inforation
ay be en5oyed ?Cooley, 7 &reatise on the Constitutional
0iitations, 11> K19>+L@ by guaranteeing the right and andating
the duty to afford access to sources of inforation# 3ence, the
fundaental right therein recogni;ed ay be asserted by the
people upon the ratification of the Constitution ,ithout need for
any ancillary act of the 0egislature ?"d#, at p# 116@ Chat ay be
pro(ided for by the 0egislature are reasonable conditions and
liitations upon the access to be afforded ,hich ust, of
necessity, be consistent ,ith the declared "tate policy of full
public disclosure of all transactions in(ol(ing public interest
?Constitution, 7rt# $$, "ec# +A@# 3o,e(er, it cannot be
o(erephasi;ed that ,hate(er liitation ay be prescribed by
the 0egislature, the right and the duty under 7rt# $$$, "ec# > ha(e
becoe operati(e and enforceable by (irtue of the adoption of
the <e, Charter#= ?'ecision of the "upree Court 'n (anc in
0egaspi (# Ci(il "er(ice Coission, 160 "CR7 6-0, 6-426-6
K19A>L#
&he sae otion to copel Judge /onferrada to re(eal the date of e!ecution of petitioner
9chegaray ,as filed by his counsel, 7tty# &heodore &e, on 'eceber >, 199A# 3e in(o4ed his
client's right to due process and the public's right to inforation# &he "olicitor :eneral, as counsel
for public respondents, did not oppose petitioner's otion on the ground that this Court has no
ore 5urisdiction o(er the process of e!ecution of 9chegaray# &his Court granted the relief prayed
for by the "ecretary of Justice and by the counsel of the petitioner in its Resolution of 'eceber
16, 199A# &here ,as not a ,hiper of protest fro the public respondents and they are no,
estopped fro contending that this Court has lost its 5urisdiction to grant said relief# &he
5urisdiction of this Court does not depend on the con(enience of litigants#
$$
"econd# Ce li4e,ise re5ect the public respondents' contention that the =decision in this case
ha(ing becoe final and e!ecutory, its e!ecution enters the e!clusi(e abit of authority of the
e!ecuti(e departent # # ## By granting the &R), the 3onorable Court has in effect granted
reprie(e ,hich is an e!ecuti(e function#=
14
/ublic respondents cite as their authority for this
proposition, "ection 19, 7rticle E$$ of the Constitution ,hich reads%
9!cept in cases of ipeachent, or as other,ise pro(ided in this Constitution,
the /resident ay grant reprie(es, coutations, and pardons, and reit fines
and forfeitures after con(iction by final 5udgent# 3e shall also ha(e the po,er to
grant anesty ,ith the concurrence of a a5ority of all the ebers of the
Congress#
&he te!t and tone of this pro(ision ,ill not yield to the interpretation suggested by the public
respondents# &he pro(ision is siply the source of po,er of the /resident to grant reprie(es,
coutations, and pardons and reit fines and forfeitures after con(iction by final 5udgent# $t
also pro(ides the authority for the /resident to grant anesty ,ith the concurrence of a a5ority
of all the ebers of the Congress# &he pro(ision, ho,e(er, cannot be interpreted as denying
the po,er of courts to control the enforceent of their decisions after their finality# $n truth, an
accused ,ho has been con(icted by final 5udgent still possesses collateral rights and these
rights can be claied in the appropriate courts# For instance, a death con(ict ,ho becoe insane
after his final con(iction cannot be e!ecuted ,hile in a state of insanity#
16
7s obser(ed by
7ntieau, =today, it is generally assued that due process of la, ,ill pre(ent the go(ernent fro
e!ecuting the death sentence upon a person ,ho is insane at the tie of e!ecution#=
11
&he
suspension of such a death sentence is undisputably an e!ercise of 5udicial po,er# $t is not a
usurpation of the presidential po,er of reprie(e though its effects is the sae I the teporary
suspension of the e!ecution of the death con(ict# $n the sae (ein, it cannot be denied that
Congress can at any tie aend R#7# <o# >169 by reducing the penalty of death to life
iprisonent# &he effect of such an aendent is li4e that of coutation of sentence# But by
no stretch of the iagination can the e!ercise by Congress of its plenary po,er to aend la,s be
considered as a (iolation of the po,er of the /resident to coute final sentences of con(iction#
&he po,ers of the 9!ecuti(e, the 0egislati(e and the Judiciary to sa(e the life of a death con(ict
do not e!clude each other for the siple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life#
$ndeed, in (arious "tates in the United "tates, la,s ha(e e(en been enacted e!pressly granting
courts the po,er to suspend e!ecution of con(icts and their constitutionality has been upheld
o(er arguents that they infringe upon the po,er of the /resident to grant reprie(es# For the
public respondents therefore to contend that only the 9!ecuti(e can protect the right to life of an
accused after his final con(iction is to (iolate the principle of co2e.ual and coordinate po,ers of
the three branches of our go(ernent#
$$$
&hird# &he Court's resolution teporarily restraining the e!ecution of petitioner ust be put in its
proper perspecti(e as it has been grie(ously distorted especially by those ,ho a4e a li(ing by
(ilifying courts# /etitioner filed his Eery Urgent Motion for $ssuance of &R) on 'eceber +A,
199A at about 11%-0 p## 3e in(o4ed se(eral grounds, viz% ?1@ that his e!ecution has been set on
January 4, the first ,or4ing day of 1999* ?b@ that ebers of Congress had either sought for his
e!ecuti(e cleency and8or re(ie, or repeal of the la, authori;ing capital punishent* ?b#1@ that
"enator 7.uilino /ientel's resolution as4ing that cleency be granted to the petitioner and that
capital punishent be re(ie,ed has been concurred by thirteen ?1-@ other senators* ?b#+@ "enate
/resident Marcelo Fernan and "enator Miria "# 'efensor ha(e publicly declared they ,ould
see4 a re(ie, of the death penalty la,* ?b#-@ "enator /aul Roco has also sought the repeal of
capital punishent, and ?b#4@ Congressan "alacrib Baterina, Jr#, and thirty fi(e ?-6@ other
congressen are deanding re(ie, of the sae la,#
Chen the Eery Urgent Motion ,as filed, the Court ,as already in its traditional recess and ,ould
only resue session on January 1A, 1999# 9(en then, Chief Justice 3ilario 'a(ide, Jr# called the
Court to a "pecial "ession on January 4, 1991
1>
at 10# a## to deliberate on petitioner's Eery
Urgent Motion# &he Court hardly had fi(e ?6@ hours to resol(e petitioner's otion as he ,as due to
be e!ecuted at - p## &hus, the Court had the difficult proble of resol(ing ,hether petitioner's
allegations about the o(es in Congress to repeal or aend the 'eath /enalty 0a, are ere
speculations or not# &o the Court's a5ority, there ,ere good reasons ,hy the Court should not
iediately disiss petitioner's allegations as ere speculations and surises# &hey noted that
petitioner's allegations ,ere ade in a pleading under oath and ,ere ,idely publici;ed in the print
and broadcast edia# $t ,as also of 5udicial notice that the 11th Congress is a ne, Congress and
has no less than one hundred thirty ?1-0@ ne, ebers ,hose (ie,s on capital punishent are
still une!pressed# &he present Congress is therefore different fro the Congress that enacted the
'eath /enalty 0a, ?R#7# <o# >169@ and the 0ethal $n5ection 0a, ?R#7# <o# A1>>@# $n contrast, the
Court's inority felt that petitioner's allegations lac4ed clear factual bases# &here ,as hardly a
tie to (erify petitioner's allegations as his e!ecution ,as set at - p## 7nd (erification fro
Congress ,as ipossible as Congress ,as not in session# :i(en these constraints, the Court's
a5ority did not rush to 5udgent but too4 an e!treely cautious stance by teporarily restraining
the e!ecution of petitioner# &he suspension ,as teporary I =until June 16, 1999, coe(al ,ith
the constitutional duration of the present regular session of Congress, unless it sooner becoes
certain that no repeal or odification of the la, is going to be ade#= &he e!tree caution ta4en
by the Court ,as copelled, aong others, by the fear that any error of the Court in not stopping
the e!ecution of the petitioner ,ill preclude any further relief for all rights stop at the gra(eyard#
7s life ,as at, sta4e, the Court refused to constitutionali;e haste and the hysteria of soe
partisans# &he Court's a5ority felt it needed the certainty that the legislature ,ill not petitioner as
alleged by his counsel# $t ,as belie(ed that la, and e.uitable considerations deand no less
before allo,ing the "tate to ta4e the life of one its citi;ens#
&he teporary restraining order of this Court has produced its desired result, i.e., the
crystalli;ation of the issue ,hether Congress is disposed to re(ie, capital punishent# &he public
respondents, thru the "olicitor :eneral, cite posterior e(ents that negate beyond doubt the
possibility that Congress ,ill repeal or aend the death penalty la,# 3e naes these
super(ening e(ents as follo,s%
!!! !!! !!!
a# &he public pronounceent of /resident 9strada that he ,ill (eto any la,
iposing the death penalty in(ol(ing heinous cries#
b. &he resolution of Congressan :ole;, et al#, that they are against the repeal of
the la,*
c. &he fact that "enator Roco's resolution to repeal the la, only bears his signature
and that of "enator /ientel#
1A
$n their "uppleental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, the "olicitor :eneral cited
3ouse Resolution <o# 1+9 introduced by Congressan :ole; entitled =Resolution e!pressing the
sense of the 3ouse of Representati(es to re5ect any o(e to re(ie, R#7# <o# >169 ,hich
pro(ided for the reiposition of death penalty, notifying the "enate, the Judiciary and the
9!ecuti(e 'epartent of the position of the 3ouse of Representati(e on this atter and urging
the /resident to e!haust all eans under the la, to iediately ipleent the death penalty
la,#= &he :ole; resolution ,as signed by 11- congressan as of January 11, 1999# $n a
arathon session yesterday that e!tended up - o'cloc4 in the orning, the 3ouse of
Representati(e ,ith inor, the 3ouse of Representati(e ,ith inor aendents forally
adopted the :ole; resolution by an o(er,heling (ote# 3ouse Resolution <o# +6 e!pressed the
sentient that the 3ouse =# # # does not desire at this tie to re(ie, Republic 7ct >169#= $n
addition, the /resident has stated that he ,ill not re.uest Congress to ratify the "econd /rotocol
in re(ie, of the pre(alence of heinous cries in the country# $n light of these de(elopents, the
Court's &R) should no, be lifted as it has ser(ed its legal and huanitarian purpose#
7 last note# $n 19++, the faous Clarence 'arro, predicted that =# # # the .uestion of capital
punishent had been the sub5ect of endless discussion and ,ill probably ne(er be settled so long
as en belie(e in punishent#=
19
$n our clie and tie ,hen heinous cries continue to be
unchec4ed, the debate on the legal and oral predicates of capital punishent has been
regrettably blurred by eotionalis because of the unfaltering faith of the pro and anti2death
partisans on the right and righteousness of their postulates# &o be sure, any debate, e(en if it is
no ore than an e!change of epithets is healthy in a deocracy# But ,hen the debate
deteriorates to discord due to the o(eruse of ,ords that ,ound, ,hen anger threatens to turn the
a5ority rule to tyranny, it is the especial duty of this Court to assure that the guarantees of the
Bill of Rights to the inority fully hold# 7s Justice Brennan reinds us =# # # it is the (ery purpose
of the Constitution I and particularly the Bill of Rights I to declare certain (alues transcendent,
beyond the reach of teporary political a5orities#=
+0
Man has yet to in(ent a better hatchery of
5ustice than the courts# $t is a hatchery ,here 5ustice ,ill bloo only ,hen ,e can pre(ent the
roots of reason to be blo,n a,ay by the ,inds of rage# &he flae of the rule of la, cannot be
ignited by rage, especially the rage of the ob ,hich is the other of unfairness# &he business of
courts in rendering 5ustice is to be fair and they can pass their litus test only ,hen they can be
fair to hi ,ho is oentarily the ost hated by society#
+1
$< E$9C C39R9)F, the Court grants the public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
and "uppleental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and lifts the &eporary
Restraining )rder issued in its Resolution of January 4, 1999#
&he Court also orders respondent trial court 5udge ?3on# &hela 7# /onferrada, Regional &rial
Court, Fue;on City, Branch 104@ to set ane, the date for e!ecution of the con(ict8petitioner in
accordance ,ith applicable pro(isions of la, and the Rules of Court, ,ithout further delay#
") )R'9R9'#
Davide) Jr.) *.J.) +omero) (ellosillo) ,elo) -apunan) ,endoza) ,artinez) .uisumbin) Purisima
and Pardo) JJ.) concur.
/itu and Pananiban) JJ.) Please see 0eparate Opinion.
(uena and 1onzaa2+e3es) JJ.) too4 no part.



"eparate )pinions

E$&U:, J.) separate opinion*
0et e state at the outset that $ ha(e hubly aintained that Republic 7ct <o# >169, insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, falls short of the strict nor set forth by the Constitution# $ and soe
of y brethren on the Court, ,ho hold siilarly, ha(e consistently e!pressed this stand in the
affirance by the Court of death sentences iposed by Regional &rial Courts#
$n its resolution of 04 January 1999, the Court resol(ed to issue in the abo(e2nubered petition a
teporary restraining order ?=&R)=@ because, aong other things, of ,hat had been stated to be
indications that Congress ,ould re2e!aine the death penalty la,# $t ,as principally out of
respect and coity to a co2e.ual branch of the go(ernent, i#e#, to reasonably allo, it that
opportunity if truly inded, that oti(ated the Court to grant, after deliberation, a liited tie for
the purpose#
&he Court, it ust be stressed, did not, by issuing the &R), thereby reconsider its 5udgent
con(icting the accused or recall the iposition of the death penalty#
&he doctrine has alost in(ariably been that after a decision becoes final and e!ecutory,
nothing else is further done e!cept to see to its copliance since for the Court to adopt other,ise
,ould be to put no end to litigations &he rule not,ithstanding, the Court retains control o(er the
case until the full satisfaction of the final 5udgent conforably ,ith established legal processes#
3ence, the Court has ta4en cogni;ance of the petition assailing before it the use of lethal in5ection
by the "tate to carry out the death sentence# $n any e(ent, 5urisprudence teaches that the rule of
iutability of final and e!ecutory 5udgents adits of settled e!ceptions# Concededly, the Court
ay, for instance, suspend the e!ecution of a final 5udgent ,hen it becoes iperati(e in the
higher interest of 5ustice or ,hen super(ening e(ents ,arrant it#
1
Certainly, this e!traordinary
relief cannot be denied any an, ,hate(er ight be his station, ,hose right to life is the issue at
sta4e# &he pronounceent in Director of Prisons vs. Jude of !irst "nstance of *avite,
+
should be
instructi(e# &hus I
&his "upree Court has repeatedly declared in (arious decisions, ,hich
constitute 5urisprudence on the sub5ect, that in criinal cases, after the sentence
has been pronounced and the period for reopening the sae has elapsed, the
court can not change or after its 5udgent, as its 5urisdiction has
terinated, functus est officio suo, according to the classical phrase# Chen in
cases of appeal or re(ie, the cause has been returned thereto for e!ecution, in
the e(ent that the 5udgent has been affired, it perfors a inisterial duty in
issuing the proper order# But it does not follo, fro this cessation of functions on
the part of the court ,ith reference to the ending of the cause that the 5udicial
authority terinates by ha(ing then passed copletely to the e!ecuti(e# &he
particulars of the e!ecution itself, ,hich are certainly not al,ays included in the
5udgent and ,rit of e!ecution, in any e(ent are absolutely under the control of
the 5udicial authority, ,hile the e!ecuti(e has no po,er o(er the person of the
con(ict e!cept to pro(ide for carrying out the penalty and to pardon#
:etting do,n to the solution of the .uestion in the case at bar, ,hich is that of
e!ecution of a capital sentence, it ust be accepted as a hypothesis that
postponeent of the date can be re.uested# &here can be no dispute on this
point# $t is a ,ell24no,n principle that, not,ithstanding the order of e!ecution and
the e!ecutory nature thereof on the date set or at the proper tie, the date
therefor can be postponed, e(en in sentences of death# Under the coon la,
this postponeent can be ordered in three ,ays% ?1@ By coand of the Ging*
?+@ by discretion ?arbitrio@ of the court* and ?-@ by andate of the la,# $t is
sufficient to state this principle of the coon la, to render ipossible the
assertion in absolute ters that after the con(ict has once been placed in 5ail the
trial court can not reopen the case to in(estigate the facts that sho, the need for
postponeent# $f one of the ,ays is by direction of the court, it is ac4no,ledged
that e(en after the date of the e!ecution has been fi!ed, and not,ithstanding the
general rule that after the Court of First $nstance has perfored its inisterial
duty of ordering the e!ecution, functus est officio suo, and its part is ended, if
ho,e(er a circustance arises that ought to delay the e!ecution, there is an
iperati(e duty to in(estigate the eergency and to order a postponeent # # ##
$n fine, the authority of the Court to see to the proper e!ecution of its final 5udgent, the po,er of
the /resident to grant pardon, coutation or reprie(e, and the prerogati(e of Congress to
repeal or odify the la, that could benefit the con(icted accused are not essentially preclusi(e of
one another nor constitutionally incopatible and ay each be e!ercised ,ithin their respecti(e
spheres and confines# &hus, the stay of e!ecution issued by the Court ,ould not pre(ent either
the /resident fro e!ercising his pardoning po,er or Congress fro enacting a easure that
ay be ad(antageous to the ad5udged offender#
&he &R) of this Court has pro(ided that it shall be lifted e(en before its e!piry date of 16 June
1999, =coe(al ,ith the duration of the present regular session of Congress,= if it =sooner becoes
certain that no repeal or odification of the la, is going to be ade#= &he =Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration= filed by the )ffice of the "olicitor :eneral states that as of the oent, =certain
circustances8super(ening e(ents ?ha(e@ transpired to the effect that the repeal or odification
of the la, iposing death penalty has becoe nil # # ##= $f, indeed, it ,ould be futile to yet e!pect
any chance for a tiely
-
re2e!aination by Congress of the death penalty la,, then $ can
appreciate ,hy the a5ority of the Justices on the Court feel rightly bound e(en no, to lift the
&R)#
$ a hopeful, ne(ertheless, that Congress ,ill in tie find its ,ay clear to underta4ing a ost
thorough and dispassionate re2e!aination of the la, not so uch for its .uestioned ,isdo as
for the need to ha(e a second loo4 at the conditions sine 5ua non prescribed by the Constitution
in the iposition of the death penalty# $n People vs. ,asali%it,
4
in urging, ,ith all due respect,
Congress to consider a propt re2e!aination of the death penalty la,, $ ha(e said%
&he deterination of ,hen to prescribe the death penalty lies, in the initial
instance, ,ith the la,2a4ing authority, the Congress of the /hilippines, sub5ect
to the conditions that the Constitution itself has set forth* viz% ?1@ &hat there ust
be compellin reasons to 5ustify the iposition of the death penalty* and ?+@ &hat
the capital offense ust in(ol(e a %einous crime# $t appears that the fundaental
la, did not conteplate a siple 'reiposition' of the death penalty to offenses
theretofore already pro(ided in the Re(ised /enal Code or, let alone, 5ust
because of it# &he ter 'copelling reasons' ,ould indicate to e that there ust
first be a ar4ed change in the ilieu fro that ,hich has pre(ailed at the tie of
adoption of the 19A> Constitution, on the one hand, to that ,hich e!ists at the
enactent of the statute prescribing the death penalty, upon the other hand, that
,ould a4e it distincti(ely ine!orable to allo, the re2iposition of the death
penalty# Most iportantly, the circustances that ,ould characteri;e the 'heinous
nature' of the crie and a4e it so e!ceptionally offensi(e as to ,arrant the
death penalty ust be spelled out ,ith great clarity in the la,, albeit ,ithout
necessarily precluding the Court fro e!ercising its po,er of 5udicial re(ie, gi(en
the circustances of each case# &o (enture, in the case of urder, the crie
,ould becoe 'heinous' ,ithin the Constitutional concept, ,hen, to e!eplify, the
(icti is unnecessarily sub5ected to a painful and e!cruciating death or, in the
crie of rape, ,hen the offended party is callously huiliated or e(en brutally
4illed by the accused# &he indiscriinate iposition of the death penalty could
soeho, constrain courts to apply, perhaps ,ithout consciously eaning to,
stringent standards for con(iction, not too unli4ely beyond ,hat ight norally
be re.uired in criinal cases, that can, in fact, result in undue e!culpation of
offenders to the great pre5udice of (ictis and society#
&oday, $ reiterate the abo(e (ie, and until the e!acting standards of the Constitution are clearly
et as so hereinabo(e e!pressed, $ ,ill ha(e to disagree, ost respectfully, ,ith y colleagues
in the a5ority ,ho continue to hold the presently structured Republic 7ct <o# >169 to be in
accord ,ith the Constitution, an issue that is fundaental, constant and ine!tricably lin4ed to the
iposition each tie of the death penalty and, li4e the instant petition, to the legal incidents
pertinent thereto#
7ccordingly, $ (ote against the lifting of the restraining order of the Court e(en as $, li4e e(eryone
else, ho,e(er, ust respect and be held bound by the ruling of the a5ority#

/7<:7<$B7<, J.) separate opinion*
$ agree ,ith the Court's Resolution that, ,ithout doubt, this Court has 5urisdiction to issue the
disputed &eporary Restraining )rder ?&R)@ on January 4, 1999# $ ,ill not repeat its ,ell2
reasoned dis.uisition# $ ,rite only to e!plain y (ote in the conte!t of the larger issue of the death
penalty#
"ince the solicitor general has deonstrated that Congress ,ill not repeal or aend R7 >169
during its current session ,hich ends on June 16, 1999 and that, in any e(ent, the /resident ,ill
(eto any such repeal or aendent, the &R) should by its o,n ters be deeed lifted no,#
3o,e(er, y ob5ections to the iposition of the death penalty transcend the &R) and pereate
its 5uridical essence#
$ aintain y (ie, that R7 >169 ?the 'eath /enalty 0a,@ is unconstitutional insofar as soe
parts thereof prescribing the capital penalty fail to coply ,ith the re.uireents of =heinousness=
and =copelling reasons= prescribed by the Constitution of the /hilippines# M &his $ ha(e
repeatedly stated in y 'issenting )pinion in (arious death cases decided by the Court, as ,ell
as during the Court's deliberation on this atter on January 4, 1999# For easy reference, $ hereby
attach a copy of y 'issent proulgated on February >, 199>#
Conse.uently, $ cannot no, (ote to lift &R), because to do so ,ould ean the upholding and
enforceent of la, ?or the rele(ant portions thereof@ ,hich, $ subit ,ith all due respect, is
unconstitutional and therefore legally none!istent# $ also reiterate that, in y huble opinion, R7
A1>> ?the 0ethal $n5ection 0a,@ is li4e,ise unconstitutional since it erely prescribes the anner
in ,hich R7 >169 ? the 'eath /enalty 0a,@ is to ipleented#
3a(ing said that, $ stress, ho,e(er, that $ defer to the rule of la, and ,ill abide by the ruling of the
Court that both R7 >169 and R7 A1>> are constitutional and that death penalty should, by
a5ority (ote, be ipleented by eans of lethal in5ection#
F)R &39 7B)E9 R97")<", $ (ote to deny the solicitor general's Motion for Reconsideration#
:#R# <o# 11>4>+ February >, 199>
/9)/09 )F &39 /3$0$//$<9" (s# 09) 9C39:7R7D y /$0)#
0upplemental ,otion for +econsideration
0'P6+67' OP"N"ON
Deat% Penalt3 8a$ 9nconstitutional
$n his "uppleental Motion for Reconsideration
1
dated 7ugust ++, 1991 filed by his ne,ly2
retained counsel,
+
the accused raises for the first tie a (ery crucial ground for his defense% that
Republic 7ct# <o# >169, the la, reiposing the death penalty, is unconstitutional# $n the Brief and
?original Motion for Reconsideration filed by his pre(ious counsel,
-
this transcendental issue ,as
nor brought up# 3ence, it ,as not passed upon by this Court in its 'ecision affiring the trial
court's sentence of death#
4
7%e *onstitution 6bolis%ed Deat% Penalt3
"ec# 19, 7rticle $$$ of the 19A> Constitution pro(ides%
"ec# 19# ?1@ 9!cessi(e fines shall not be iposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuan punishent inflicted# <either shall death penalty be iposed, unless
for compellin reasons in(ol(ing %einouscries, the Congress hereafter pro(ides
for it# 7ny death penalty alread3 imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua#
?9phasis supplied@
&he second and third sentences of the abo(e pro(ision are ne, and had not been ,ritten in the
19-6, 19>- or e(en in the 19A1 =Freedo Constitution#= &hey proscribe the iposition
6
of the
death penalty =unless for copelling reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries, Congress pro(ides for it,=
and reduced =any death penalty already iposed= to reclusion perpetua# &he pro(ision has both a
prospecti(e aspect ?it bars the future iposition of the penalty@ and a retroacti(e one ?it reduces
iposed capital sentences to the lesser penalty of iprisonent@#
&his t,o2fold aspect is significant# $t stresses that the Constitution did not erely suspend the
iposition of the death penalty, but in fact copletely abolished it fro the statute boo4s# &he
autoatic coutation or reduction to reclusion perpetua of any death penalty e!tant as of the
effecti(ity of the Constitution clearly recogni;es that, ,hile the con(iction of an accused for a
capital crie reains, death as a penalty ceased to e!ist in our penal la,s and thus ay longer
be carried out# &his is the clear intent of the fraers of our Constitution# 7s Co# Bernas e!2
claied,
1
=?t@he a5ority (oted for the constitutional abolition of the death penalty#=
Citing this and other siilar pronounceents of the distinguished Conco delegate, Me#
Justice 7eurfina Melencio23errera ephasi;ed,
>
=$t is thus clear that ,hen Fr# Bernas
sponsored the pro(ision regarding the non2iposition of the death penalty, ,hat he had in ind
,as the total abolition and reo(al fro the statute boo4s of the death penalty# &his becae the
intent of the fraes of the Constitution ,hen they appro(ed the pro(ision and ade it a part of
the Bill of Rights#= Cith such abolition as a preise, restoration thereof becoes an e!ception to
a constitutional andate# Being an e!ception and thus in derogation of the Constitution, it ust
then be strictly construed against the "tate and liberally in fa(or of the people#
A
$n this light, R7
>169 en5oys no presuption of constitutionality#
7%e *onstitution 0trictl3 8imits
*onressional Preroative to Prescribe Deat%
&o e, it is (ery clear that the Constitution ?1@ effecti(ely reo(ed the death penalty fro the then
e!isting statutes but ?+@ authori;ed Congress to restore it at soe future tie to enable or
epo,er courts to reipose it on condition that it ?Congress@
9
finds =copelling reasons,
in(ol(ing heinous cries#= &he language of the Constitution is ephatic ?e(en if =a,4,ard=
10
@% the
authority of Congress to =pro(ide for it= is not absolute# Rather, it is strictly liited%
1# by =copelling reasons= that ay arise after the Constitution becae effecti(e*
and
+# to cries ,hich Congress should identify or define or characteri;e as =heinous#=
&he Constitution ine!orably placed upon Congress the burden of deterining the e!istence of
=copelling reasons= and of defining ,hat cries are =heinous= before it could e!ercise its la,2
a4ing prerogati(e to restore the death penalty# For clarity's sa4e, ay $ ephasi;e that
Congress, by la,* prescribes the death penalty on certain cries* and courts, by their
decisions, impose it on indi(idual offenders found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of coitting
said cries#
$n the e!ercise of this fundaental andate, Congress enacted R7 >169
11
to =pro(ide for it= ?the
death penalty@ ?1@ by aending certain pro(isions of the Re(ised /enal Code*
1+
?+@ by
incorporating a ne, article therein*
1-
and ?-@ by aending certain special la,s#
14
But R7 >169 did not change the nature or the eleents of the cries stated in the /enal Code
and in the special la,s# $t erely ade the penalty ore se(ere# <either did its pro(isions ?other
than the preable, ,hich ,as cast in general ters@ discuss or 5ustify the reasons for the ore
se(er sanction, either collecti(ely for all the offenses or indi(idually for each of the#
:enerally, it erely reinstated the concept of and the ethod by ,hich the death penalty had
been iposed until February +, 19A>, ,hen the Constitution too4 effect as follo,s% ?1@ a person is
con(icted of a capital offense* and ?+@ the coission of ,hich ,as accopanied by aggra(ating
circustances not out,eighed by itigating circustances#
&he basic .uestion then is% $n enacting R7 >169, did Congress e!ceed the liited authority
granted it by the ConstitutionN More legally put% $t re(i(ing the death penalty, did Congress act
,ith gra(e abuse of discretion or in e!cess of the (ery liited po,er or 5urisdiction conferred on it
by 7rt# $$$, "ec# 19N &he ans,er, $ respectfully subit, is D9"#
:einous *rimes
&o repeal, ,hile he Constitution liited the po,er of Congress to prescribe the death penalty
)<0D to =heinous= cries, it did not define or characteri;e the eaning of =heinous=# <either did
Congress# 7s already stated, R7 >169 itself erely selected soe e!isting cries for ,hich it
prescribed death as an applicable penalty# $t did not gi(e a standard or a characteri;ation by
,hich courts ay be able to appreciate the heinousness of a crie# $ concede that Congress ,as
only too ,ell a,are of its constitutionally liited po,er# $n deference thereto, it included a
paragraph in the preabular or =,hereas= clauses of R7 >169, as follo,s%
C39R97", the cries punishable by death under this 7ct are heinous for being
grie(ous, odious and hateful offenses and ,hich, by reason of their inherent or
anifest ,ic4edness, (iciousness, atrocity and per(ersity are repugnant and
outrageous to the coon standards and nors of decency and orality in a
5ust, ci(ili;ed and ordered society#
$n y huble (ie,, ho,e(er, the foregoing clause is clearly an insufficient definition or
characteri;ation of ,hat a heinous crie is# $t siply and gratuitously declared certain cries to
be =heinous= ,ithout ade.uately 5ustifying its bases therefor# $t supplies no useful, ,or4able, clear
and unabiguous standard by ,hich the presence of heinousness can be deterined# Calling the
cries =grie(ous, odious and hateful= is not a substitute for an ob5ecti(e 5uridical definition#
<either is the description =inherent or anifest ,ic4edness, (iciousness, atrocity and per(ersity#=
'escribing blood as blue does not detract fro its being crison in fact* and renaing guaela
as rose ,ill not ar it ,ith thorns#
Besides, a preable is really not an integral part of a la,# $t is erely an introduction to sho, its
intent or purposes# $t cannot be the origin of rights and obligations# Chere the eaning of a
statute is clear and unabiguous, the preable can neither e!pand nor restrict its operation,
uch less pre(ail o(er its te!t#
16
$n this case, it cannot be the authoritati(e source to sho,
copliance ,ith the Constitution#
7s already alluded to, R7 >169 erely aended certain la,s to prescribe death as the a!iu
iposable penalty once the court appreciates the presence or absence of aggra(ating
circustances#
11
$n other ,ords, it 5ust reinstated capital punishent for cries ,hich ,ere already punishable ,ith
death prior to the effecti(ity of the 19A> Constitution# Cith the possible e!ception of plunder and
.ualified bribery,
1>
no ne, cries ,ere introduced by R7 >169# &he offenses punished by death
under said la, ,ere already to punishable by the Re(ised /enal Code
1A
and by special la,s#
'uring the debate on "enate Bill <o# A91 ,hich later becae R7 >169, "en# Jose 0ina, in
ans,er to a .uestion of "en# 9rnesto Maceda, ,ryly said%
19
"o ,e did not go that far fro the Re(ised /enal Code, Mr# /resident, and fro
e!isting special la,s ,hich, before abolition of the death penalty, had already
death as the a!iu penalty#
By erely reiposing capital punishent on the (ery sae cries ,hich ,ere already penali;ed
,ith death prior to the charter's effecti(ity, Congress $ subit has not fulfilled its specific and
positi(e constitutional duty# $f the Constitutional Coission intended erely to allo, Congress
to prescribe death for these (ery sae cries, it ,ould not ha(e ,ritten "ec# 19 of 7rticle $$$ into
the fundaental la,# But the stubborn fact is it did# Eerily, the intention to 1@ delete the death
penalty fro our criinal la,s and +@ a4e its restoration possible only under and sub5ect to
stringent conditions is e(ident not only fro the language of the Constitution but also fro the
charter debates on this atter#
&he critical phrase =unless for copelling reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries= ,as an aendent
introduced by Co# Christian Monsod# $n e!plaining ,hat possible cries could .ualify as
heinous, he and Co# Jose "uare; agreed on =organi;ed urder= or =brutal urder of a rape
(icti=#
+0
<ote that the honorable coissioners did not 5ust say =urder= but organi;ed urder*
not 5ust rape but brutal murder of a rape (icti# Chile the debates ,ere adittedly rather scanty, $
belie(e that the a(ailable inforation sho,s that, ,hen deliberating on =heinousness=, the
Constitutional Coission did not ha(e in ind the offenses already e!isting and already
penali;ed ,ith death# $ also belie(e that the heinousness clause re.uires that%
1# the cries should be entirely ne, offenses, the eleents of ,hich ha(e an
inherent .uality, degree or le(el of per(ersity, depra(ity or (iciousness unheard of
until then* or
2. e(en e!isting cries, provided soe ne, eleent or essential ingredient li4e
=organi;ed= or =brutal= is added to sho, their utter per(ersity, odiousness or
ale(olence* or
-# the eans or ethod by ,hich the crie, ,hether ne, or old, is carried out
e(inces a degree or agnitude of e!tree (iolence, e(il, cruelty, atrocity,
(iciousness as to deonstrate its heinousness#
+1
For this purpose, Congress could enact an entirely ne, set of circustances to .ualify the crie
as =heinous=, in the sae anner that the presence of treachery in a hoicide aggra(ates the
crie to urder for ,hich a hea(ier penalty is prescribed#
*ompellin +easons
Fuite apart fro re.uiring the attendant eleent of heinousness, the Constitution also directs
Congress to deterine =copelling reasons= for the re(i(al of the capital penalty# $t is true that
paragraphs - and 4 of the preable of R7 >169
++
ade soe attept at eeting this
re.uireent# But such effort ,as at best feeble and inconse.uential# $t should be reebered
that e(ery ,ord or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should ne(er be ignored, ca(alierly2
treated or brushed aside# &hus, $ belie(e that the copelling reasons and the characteri;ation of
heinousness cannot be done ,holesale but ust sho,n for each and e(ery crie, indi(idually
and separately#
&he ,ords =copelling reasons= ,ere included in the Charter because, in the ,ords of Co#
Monsod, =in the future, circustances ay arise ,hich ,e should not preclude today # # # and that
the conditions and the situation ?during the deliberations of the Constitutional Coission@ ight
change for (ery specific reasons= re.uiring the return of the constitutionally2abhorred penalty#
$n his sponsorship of 3ouse Bill <o# 1+ ,hich later e(ol(ed into R7 >169, Congressan /ablo
:arcia, in ans,er to .uestions raised by Representati(e 9dcel 0agan tried to e!plain these
copelling reasons%
+-
MR# 07:M7<% 0o $%at are t%e compellin reasons no$) ,r. 0pea4er; # # #
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &he ,orsening peace and order condition in the country, Mr#
"pea4er# &hat is one#
MR# 07:M7<# "o the copelling reason ,hich the distinguished sponsor ,ould
li4e to 5ustify or ser(e as an anchor for the 5ustification of the reiposition of the
death penalty is the alleged ,orsening peace and order situation# &he
:entlean clais that is one the copelling reasons# But before ,e dissent this
particular =copelling reason,= ma3 $e 4no$ $%at are t%e ot%er compellin
reasons) ,r. 0pea4er;
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@ Justice, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Justice#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Des, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Justice is a copelling reason, Mr# "pea4erN Could the
:entlean 4indly elaborate on that ans,erN Chy is 5ustice a copelling reason
as if 5ustice ,as not obtained at the tie the Constitution abolished the death
penaltyN 7ny copelling reason should be a super(ening circustances after
19A>#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Mr# "pea4er, $ ha(e repeatedly said again and again that if
one li(es in an organi;ed society go(erned by la,, 5ustice deands that crie be
punished and that the penalty iposed be coensurate ,ith the offense
coitted#
MR# 07:M7<# &he :entlean ,ould agree ,ith e that ,hen the Constitution
spea4s of the copelling reasons to 5ustify the reiposition of death penalty, it
refers to reasons ,hich ,ould super(ene or coe after the appro(al of the 19A>
Constitution# $s he subitting that 5ustice, in his o,n concept of a coensurate
penalty for the offense coitted, ,as not obtained in 19A> ,hen the
Constitution abolished the death penalty and the people ratified itN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &hat is precisely ,hy ,e are saying that no,, under present
conditions, because of the seriousness of the offenses being coitted at this
tie, 5ustice deands that the appropriate penalty ust be eted out for those
,ho ha(e coitted heinous cries#
!!! !!! !!!
$n short, Congressan :arcia in(o4ed the preabular 5ustifications of =,orsening peace and
order= and =5ustice=# Cith all due respect $ subit that these grounds are not =copelling= enough
to 5ustify the re(i(al of state2decreed deaths# $n fact, $ dare say that these =reasons= ,ere e(en
non2e!istent# "tatistics fro the /hilippine <ational /olice sho, that the crie (olue and crie
rate particularly on those legislated capital offenses did not ,orsen but in fact declined bet,een
19A>, the date ,hen the Constitution too4 effect, and 199-, the year ,hen R7 >169 ,as enacted#
Citness the follo,ing debate
+4
also bet,een Representati(es :arcia and 0agan%
MR# 07:M7<# Eery good, Mr# "pea4er#
<o,, can ,e go to 19A># Could the :entlean fro Cebu infor us the (olue
of the crie of urder in 19A>N
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &he (olue of the crie of urder in 19A> is 1+,-06#
MR# 07:M7<# "o, the corresponding crie rate ,as +1 percent#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Des, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# &hat ,as in 19A>, Mr# "pea4er, could the distinguished chairan
infor us the (olue of urder in 19AAN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as 10,6+1, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Or it $as a reduction from 12)<=> in 198? to 1=)>21 in 1988.
*orrespondinl3) t%e crime rate in t%e ver3 3ear after t%e abolition of t%e deat%
penalt3 $as reduced from 21 percent to 18 percent. "s t%at correct) ,r. 0pea4er;
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%at is correct) ,r. 0pea4er# &hose are the statistics supplied
by the /C#
MR# 07:M7<# <o, can ,e go again to 19A> ,hen the Constitution abolished
the death penaltyN May ,e 4no, fro the distinguished :entlean the (olue
of robbery in 19A>N
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Cill the :entlean state the figureN $ ,ill confir it#
MR# 07:M7<# <o, Mr# "pea4er, $ a as4ing the .uestion#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as ++,94+, Mr# "pea4er, and the crie rate ,as 40
percent#
MR# 07:M7<# &his ,as the year iediately after the abolition of the death
penalty# Could the :entlean tell us the (olue of robbery cases in 19AAN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as 11,9+1, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Obviousl3, t%e 1entleman $ould aree $it% me# ,r# 0pea4er t%at
t%e volume of robber3 cases declined from 22)9@2 in 198? or crime rate of @=
percent to 1A)92A or a crime rate of 29 percent# Bould t%e 1entleman confirm
t%at, ,r# 0pea4erN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%is is $%at t%e statistics sa3, $ understand ,e are reading
no, fro the sae docuent#
MR# 07:M7<# <o,, going to hoicide, the (olue 19A> ,as 1+,A>0 or a crie
rate of ++ percent# &he (olue in 19AA ,as 11,1-+ or a crie rate of 19 percent#
Could the :entlean confir that, Mr# "pea4erN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7s $ "aid, Mr# "pea4er, ,e are reading fro the sae
docuent and $ ,ould not ,ant to say that the :entlean is isreading the
docuent that $ ha(e here#
MR# 07:M7<# But ,ould the :entlean confir thatN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%e document spea4s for itself.
Chen interpellated by "en# 7rturo &olentino, "en# Jose 0ina ga(e soe figures on the nuber of
persons arrested in regard to drug2related offenses in the year 19A> as copared to 1991%
+6
0et e cite this concrete statistics by the 'angerous 'rug Board#
$n 19A> I this ,as the year ,hen the death penalty ,as
abolished I the persons arrested in drug2related cases ,ere -,01+, and the
figure dropped to +,1A1 in 19AA#
By the ,ay, $ ,ill furnish y Colleagues ,ith a photocopy of this report#
Fro -,01+ in 19A>, it dropped to +,1A1# 7gain, it increased a bit to +,A1+ in
19A9# $t still decreased to +,+0+ in 1990, and it increased again to +,A1+ in 1991#
But in 19A>, ,hen the death penalty ,as abolished, as far as the drug2related
cases are concerned, the figure continued a do,n,ard trend, and there ,as no
death penalty in this tie fro, 19AA to 1991#
$n a further attept to sho, copelling reasons, the proponents of the death penalty argue that
its reiposition =,ould pose as an effecti(e deterrent against heinous cries#=
+1
3o,e(er no
statistical data, no sufficient proof, epirical or other,ise, ha(e been subitted to sho, ,ith any
conclusi(eness the relationship bet,een the prescription of the death penalty for certain offenses
and the coission or non2coission thereof# &his is a theory that can be debated on and
on,
+>
in the sae anner that another proposition I that the real deterrent to crie is
the certaint3 of immediate arrest) prosecution and conviction of the culprit ,ithout unnecessary
ris4, e!pense and incon(enience to the (icti, his heirs or his ,itnesses I can be argued
indefinitely#
+A
&his debate can last till the acadeics gro, ,eary of the spo4en ,ord, but it ,ould
not lessen the constitutionally2iposed burden of Congress to act ,ithin the =heinousness= and
=copelling reasons= liits of its death2prescribing po,er#
Ot%er *onstitutional +i%ts
,ilitate 6ainst +6 ?A>9
$t should be ephasi;ed that the constitutional ban against the death penalty is included in our
Bill of Rights# 7s such, it should I li4e any other guarantee in fa(or of the accused I be
;ealously protected,
+9
and any e!ception thereto eticulously screened# 7ny doubt should be
resol(ed in fa(or of the people, particularly ,here the right pertains to persons accused of
cries#
-0
3ere the issue is not 5ust cries I but capital criesO
"o too, all our pre(ious Constitutions, including the first one ordained at Malolos, guarantee that
=?n@o person shall be depri(ed of life, liberty or property ,ithout due process of la,#=
-1
&his
priary right of the people to en5oy life I life at its fullest, life in dignity and honor I is not only
reiterated by the 19A> Charter but is in fact fortified by its other pro2life and pro2huan rights
pro(isions# 3ence, the Constitution (alues the dignity of e(ery huan person and guarantees full
respect for huan rights,
-+
e!pressly prohibits any for of torture
--
,hich is arguably a lesser
penalty than death, ephasi;es the indi(idual right to life by gi(ing protection to the life of the
other and the unborn fro the oent of conception
-4
and establishes the people's rights to
health, a balanced ecology and education#
-6
&his Constitutional e!plosion of concern for an ore than property for people ore than the
state, and for life ore than ere e!istence augurs ,ell for the strict application of the
constitutional liits against the re(i(al of death penalty as the final and irre(ersible e!action of
society against its percei(ed eneies#
$ndeed, (olues ha(e been ,ritten about indi(idual rights to free speech# assebly and e(en
religion# But the ost basic and ost iportant of these rights is the right to life# Cithout life, the
other rights cease in their en5oyent, utility and e!pression#
&his opinion ,ould not be coplete ,ithout a ,ord on the ,renching fact that the death penalty
ilitates against the poor, the po,erless and the arginali;ed# &he =/rofile of 116 'eath Ro,
Con(icts= subitted by the Free 0egal 7ssistance :roup
-1
highlights this sad fact%
1. "ince the reiposition of the death penalty, 1A1 persons
->
ha(e been sentenced
to death# 7t the end of 1994, there ,ere +4 death penalty con(icts, at the end of
1996, the nuber rose to 90* an a(erage of se(en ?>@ con(icts per onth* double
the onthly a(erage of capital sentences iposed the prior year# Fro January
to June 1991, the nuber of death penalty con(icts reached >+, an a(erage of
1+ con(icts per onth, alost double the onthly a(erage of capital sentences
iposed in 1996#
+# )f the 116 con(icts polled, appro!iately t,enty one percent ?+1H@ earn
bet,een /+00 to /+,900 onthly* ,hile appro!iately t,enty se(en percent
?+>H@ earn bet,een /-,000 to /-,999 onthly# &hose earning abo(e /4,000
onthly are e!ceedingly fe,% se(en percent ?>H@ earn bet,een /4,000 to
/4,999, four percent ?4H@ earn bet,een /6,000 to /6,999, se(en percent ?>H@
earn bet,een /1,000 to /1,999, those earning bet,een />,000 to /16,000
coprise only four percent ?4H@, those earning /16,000 and abo(e only one
percent ?1H@# 7ppro!iately thirteen percent ?1-H@ earn nothing at all, ,hile
appro!iately t,o percent ?+H@ earn subsistence ,ages ,ith another fi(e
percent ?6H@ earning (ariable incoe# 7ppro!iately nine percent ?9H@ do not
4no, ho, uch they earn in a onth#
-# &hus, appro!iately t,o2thirds of the con(icts, about 11+ of the, earn belo,
the go(ernent2andated iniu onthly ,age of /4,+90* ten ?10@ of these
earn belo, the official po(erty line set by go(ernent# &,enty si! ?+1@ earn
bet,een /4,600#00 and /11,0000#00 onthly, indicating they belong to the
iddle class* only one ?1@ earns /-0#000#00 onthly# <ine ?9@ con(icts earn
(ariable incoe or earn on a percentage or allo,ance basis* fifteen ?16@ con(icts
do not 4no, or are unsure of their onthly incoe# &,enty t,o ?++@ con(icts
earn nothing at all#
4# $n ters of occupation, appro!iately t,enty one percent ?+1H@ are agricultural
,or4ers or ,or4ers in anial husbandry* of these thirty ?-0@, or alost one2fifth
thereof, are farers# &hirty fi(e percent ?-6H@ are in the transport and
construction industry, ,ith thirty one ?-1@ construction ,or4ers or ,or4ers in
allied fields ?carpentry, painting, ,elding@ ,hile t,enty se(en ?+>@ are transport
,or4ers ?deli(ery, dispatcher, echanic, tire an, truc4 helper@ ,ith si!teen ?11@
of the dri(ers# 9ighteen percent ?1AH@ are in clerical, sales and ser(ice
industries, ,ith fourteen ?14@ sales ,or4ers ?engaged in buy and sell or fish,
cigarette or rice (endors@, t,el(e ?1+@ ser(ice ,or4ers ?butchers, beauticians,
security guards, shoea4ers, tour guides, coputer prograers, radio
technicians@ and four ?4@ cler4s ?5anitors, M9R70C) eployee and cler4@ 7bout
four percent ?4H@ are go(ernent ,or4ers, ,ith si! ?1@ persons belonging to the
ared ser(ices ?7F/, /</ and e(en C7F:U@# /rofessionals, adinistrati(e
eployee and e!ecuti(es coprise only three percent ?-H@, nine percent ?9H@
are uneployed#
6# <one of the 'RC's use 9nglish as their ediu of counication# 7bout forty
four percent ?44H@, or slightly less than half spea4 and understand &agalog*
t,enty si! percent ?+1H@, or about one2fourth, spea4 and understand Cebuano#
&he rest spea4 and understand Bicolano, $locano, $longgo, Gapapangan,
/angasinense and Caray# )ne ?1@ con(ict is a foreign national and spea4s and
understand <iponggo#
1# 7ppro!iately t,el(e percent ?1+H@ graduated fro college, about forty se(en
percent ?4>H@ finished (arying le(els of eleentary education ,ith t,enty se(en
?+>@ graduating fro eleentary# 7bout thirty fi(e percent ?-6H@, fifty eight ?6A@
con(icts, finished (arying le(els of high school, ,ith ore than half of the
graduating fro high school# &,o ?+@ con(icts finished (ocational education* nine
?9@ con(icts did not study at all#
&he foregoing profile based on age, language and socio2econoic situations sufficiently
deonstrates that R7 >169 has ilitated against the poor and the po,erless in society I those
,ho cannot afford the legal ser(ices necessary in capital cries, ,here e!tensi(e preparation,
in(estigation, research and presentation are re.uired# &he best e!aple to shoe the sad plight of
the underpri(ileged is this (ery case ,here the crucial issue of constitutionality ,as ,oefully
oitted in the proceedings in the trial court and e(en before this Court until the Free legal
7ssistance :roup belatedly brought it up in the "uppleental Motion for Reconsideration#
&o the poor and unlettered, it is bad enough that the la, is cople! and ,ritten in a strange,
incoprehensible language# Corse still, 5udicial proceedings are thesel(es coplicated,
intiidating and daning# &he net effect of ha(ing a death penalty that is iposed ore often
than not upon the ipecunious is to engender in the inds of the latter, a sense I unfounded, to
be sure, but unhealthy ne(ertheless I of the une.ual balance of the scales of 5ustice#
Most assuredly, it ay be contended that the foregoing arguents, and in particular, the statistics
abo(e2cited, are in a (ery real sense prone to be isleading, and that regardless of the socio2
econoic profile of the 'RCs, the la, re(i(ing capital punishent does not in any ,ay single out
or discriinate against the poor, the unlettered or the underpri(ileged# &o put it in another ,ay, as
far as the disad(antaged are concerned, the la, ,ould still be cople! and ,ritten in a strange
and incoprehensible language, and 5udicial proceedings coplicated and intiidating, ,hether
the ultiate penalty in(ol(ed be life ?sentence@ or death# 7nother aspect of the ,hole contro(ersy
is that, ,hate(er the penalties set by la,, it sees to e that there ,ill al,ays be certain class or
classes of people in our society ,ho, by reason of their po(erty, lac4 of educational attainent
and eployent opportunities, are conse.uently confined to li(ing, ,or4ing and subsisting in
less2than2ideal en(ironents, aidst less2than2genteel neighbors siilarly situated as
thesel(es, and are therefore inherently ore prone to be in(ol(ed ?as (ictis or perpetrators@ in
(ices, (iolence and crie# "o fro that perspecti(e, the la, re(i(ing the death penalty neither
ipro(es nor ,orsens their lot substantially# )r, to be ore precise, such la, ay e(en be said
to help ipro(e their situation ?at least in theory@ by posing a uch stronger deterrent to the
coission of heinous cries#
3o,e(er, such a (ie,point siply ignores the (ery basic differences that e!ist in the situations of
the poor and the non2poor# /recisely because the underpri(ileged are ,hat they are, they re.uire
and deser(e a greater degree of protection and assistance fro our la,s and Constitution, and
fro the courts and the "tate, so that in spite of thesel(es, they can be epo,ered to rise
abo(e thesel(es and their situation# &he basic postulates for such a position are, $ thin4, siply
that e(eryone ultiately ,ants to better hiself and that ,e cannot better oursel(es indi(idually
to any significant degree if ,e are unable to ad(ance as an entire people and nation# 7ll the pro2
poor pro(isions of the Constitution point in this direction# Det ,e are faced ,ith this la, that
effecti(ely inflicts the ultiate punishent on none other than the poor and disad(antaged in the
greater a5ority of cases, and ,hich penalty, being so ob(iously final and so irre(ersibly
peranent, erases all hope of refor, of change for the better# &his la,, $ subit, has no place in
our legal, 5udicial and constitutional firaent#
'piloue
$n su, $ respectfully subit that%
?1@ &he 19A> Constitution abolished the death penalty fro our statute boo4s# $t did not erely
suspend or prohibit its iposition#
?+@ &he Charter effecti(ely granted a ne, right% the constitution right against the death penalty,
,hich is really a species of the right to life#
?-@ 7ny la, re(i(ing the capital penalty ust be strictly construed against the "tate and liberally in
fa(or of the accused because such a stature denigrates the Constitution, ipinges on a basic
right and tends to deny e.ual 5ustice to the underpri(ileged#
?4@ 9(ery ,ord or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should ne(er be ignored, ca(alierly2
treated or brushed aside#
?6@ Congressional po,er death is severel3 liited by t,o concurrent re.uireents%
a# !irst, Congress ust pro(ide a set of attendant circustances ,hich the
prosecution ust pro(e beyond reasonable doubt, apart fro the eleents of the
crie and itself# Congress ust e!plain ,hy and ho, these circustances define
or characteri;e the crie as =heinous=#
b# 0econd, Congress has also the duty of laying out clear and specific reasons
,hich arose after the effecti(ity of the Constitution copelling the enactent of
the la,# $t bears repeating that these re.uireents are inseparable# &hey ust
both be present in (ie, of the specific constitutional andate I =for copelling
reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries#= &he copelling reason ust flo, fro the
heinous nature of the offense#
?1@ $n e(ery la, re(i(ing the capital penalty, the heinousness and copelling reasons ust be set
out for eac% and ever3 crie, and not 5ust for all cries generally and collecti(ely#
=&hou shall not 4ill= is fundaental coandent to all Christians, as ,ell as to the rest of the
=so(ereign Filipino people= ,ho belie(e in 7lighty :od#
-A
Chile the Catholic Church, to ,hich
the (ast a5ority of our people belong, ac4no,ledges the po,er of public authorities to prescribe
the death penalty, it ad(isedly liits such prerogati(e only to =cases of e!tree
gra(ity#=
-9
&o .uote /ope John /aul $$ in his encyclical 'vanelium /itae ?7 3yn to
0ife@,
40
=punishent ust be carefully e(aluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the
e!tree of e!ecuting the offender e!cept in cases of absolute necessity% in other ,ords, $%en it
$ould not be possible ot%er$ise to defend societ3 . . . C$%ic% isD ver3 rare) if not practicall3 non2
existent#=
7lthough not absolutely banning it, both the Constitution and the Church indubitably abhor the
death penalty# Both are pro2people and pro2life# Both clearly recogni;e the priacy of huan life
o(er and abo(e e(en the state ,hich an created precisely to protect, cherish and defend hi#
&he Constitution reluctantly allo,s capital punishent only for =copelling reasons in(ol(ing
heinous cries= 5ust as the Church grudgingly perits it only reasons of =absolute necessity=
in(ol(ing cries of =e!tree gra(ity=, ,hich are (ery rare and practically non2e!istent#
$n the face of these e(ident truiss, $ as4% 3as the Congress, in enacting R7 >169, aply
discharged its constitutional burden of pro(ing the e!istence of =copelling reasons= to prescribe
death against ,ell2defined =heinous= criesN
$ respectfully subit it has not#
C39R9F)R9, the preises considered, $ respectfully (ote to grant partially the "uppleental
Motion for Reconsideration and to odify the dispositi(e portion of the decision of the trial court
by deleting the ,ords ='97&3=, as pro(ided for under R7 >169,= and substitute
therefore reclusion perpetua#
$ further (ote to declare R7 >169 unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death for
the cries entioned in its te!t#
"eparate )pinions
E$&U:, J.) separate opinion*
0et e state at the outset that $ ha(e hubly aintained that Republic 7ct <o# >169, insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, falls short of the strict nor set forth by the Constitution# $ and soe
of y brethren on the Court, ,ho hold siilarly, ha(e consistently e!pressed this stand in the
affirance by the Court of death sentences iposed by Regional &rial Courts#
$n its resolution of 04 January 1999, the Court resol(ed to issue in the abo(e2nubered petition a
teporary restraining order ?=&R)=@ because, aong other things, of ,hat had been stated to be
indications that Congress ,ould re2e!aine the death penalty la,# $t ,as principally out of
respect and coity to a co2e.ual branch of the go(ernent, i#e#, to reasonably allo, it that
opportunity if truly inded, that oti(ated the Court to grant, after deliberation, a liited tie for
the purpose#
&he Court, it ust be stressed, did not, by issuing the &R), thereby reconsider its 5udgent
con(icting the accused or recall the iposition of the death penalty#
&he doctrine has alost in(ariably been that after a decision becoes final and e!ecutory,
nothing else is further done e!cept to see to its copliance since for the Court to adopt other,ise
,ould be to put no end to litigations &he rule not,ithstanding, the Court retains control o(er the
case until the full satisfaction of the final 5udgent conforably ,ith established legal processes#
3ence, the Court has ta4en cogni;ance of the petition assailing before it the use of lethal in5ection
by the "tate to carry out the death sentence# $n any e(ent, 5urisprudence teaches that the rule of
iutability of final and e!ecutory 5udgents adits of settled e!ceptions# Concededly, the Court
ay, for instance, suspend the e!ecution of a final 5udgent ,hen it becoes iperati(e in the
higher interest of 5ustice or ,hen super(ening e(ents ,arrant it#
1
Certainly, this e!traordinary
relief cannot be denied any an, ,hate(er ight be his station, ,hose right to life is the issue at
sta4e# &he pronounceent in Director of Prisons vs. Jude of !irst "nstance of *avite,
+
should be
instructi(e# &hus I
&his "upree Court has repeatedly declared in (arious decisions, ,hich
constitute 5urisprudence on the sub5ect, that in criinal cases, after the sentence
has been pronounced and the period for reopening the sae has elapsed, the
court can not change or after its 5udgent, as its 5urisdiction has
terinated, functus est officio suo, according to the classical phrase# Chen in
cases of appeal or re(ie, the cause has been returned thereto for e!ecution, in
the e(ent that the 5udgent has been affired, it perfors a inisterial duty in
issuing the proper order# But it does not follo, fro this cessation of functions on
the part of the court ,ith reference to the ending of the cause that the 5udicial
authority terinates by ha(ing then passed copletely to the e!ecuti(e# &he
particulars of the e!ecution itself, ,hich are certainly not al,ays included in the
5udgent and ,rit of e!ecution, in any e(ent are absolutely under the control of
the 5udicial authority, ,hile the e!ecuti(e has no po,er o(er the person of the
con(ict e!cept to pro(ide for carrying out the penalty and to pardon#
:etting do,n to the solution of the .uestion in the case at bar, ,hich is that of
e!ecution of a capital sentence, it ust be accepted as a hypothesis that
postponeent of the date can be re.uested# &here can be no dispute on this
point# $t is a ,ell24no,n principle that, not,ithstanding the order of e!ecution and
the e!ecutory nature thereof on the date set or at the proper tie, the date
therefor can be postponed, e(en in sentences of death# Under the coon la,
this postponeent can be ordered in three ,ays% ?1@ By coand of the Ging*
?+@ by discretion ?arbitrio@ of the court* and ?-@ by andate of the la,# $t is
sufficient to state this principle of the coon la, to render ipossible the
assertion in absolute ters that after the con(ict has once been placed in 5ail the
trial court can not reopen the case to in(estigate the facts that sho, the need for
postponeent# $f one of the ,ays is by direction of the court, it is ac4no,ledged
that e(en after the date of the e!ecution has been fi!ed, and not,ithstanding the
general rule that after the Court of First $nstance has perfored its inisterial
duty of ordering the e!ecution, functus est officio suo, and its part is ended, if
ho,e(er a circustance arises that ought to delay the e!ecution, there is an
iperati(e duty to in(estigate the eergency and to order a postponeent # # ##
$n fine, the authority of the Court to see to the proper e!ecution of its final 5udgent, the po,er of
the /resident to grant pardon, coutation or reprie(e, and the prerogati(e of Congress to
repeal or odify the la, that could benefit the con(icted accused are not essentially preclusi(e of
one another nor constitutionally incopatible and ay each be e!ercised ,ithin their respecti(e
spheres and confines# &hus, the stay of e!ecution issued by the Court ,ould not pre(ent either
the /resident fro e!ercising his pardoning po,er or Congress fro enacting a easure that
ay be ad(antageous to the ad5udged offender#
&he &R) of this Court has pro(ided that it shall be lifted e(en before its e!piry date of 16 June
1999, =coe(al ,ith the duration of the present regular session of Congress,= if it =sooner becoes
certain that no repeal or odification of the la, is going to be ade#= &he =Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration= filed by the )ffice of the "olicitor :eneral states that as of the oent, =certain
circustances8super(ening e(ents ?ha(e@ transpired to the effect that the repeal or odification
of the la, iposing death penalty has becoe nil # # ##= $f, indeed, it ,ould be futile to yet e!pect
any chance for a tiely
-
re2e!aination by Congress of the death penalty la,, then $ can
appreciate ,hy the a5ority of the Justices on the Court feel rightly bound e(en no, to lift the
&R)#
$ a hopeful, ne(ertheless, that Congress ,ill in tie find its ,ay clear to underta4ing a ost
thorough and dispassionate re2e!aination of the la, not so uch for its .uestioned ,isdo as
for the need to ha(e a second loo4 at the conditions sine 5ua non prescribed by the Constitution
in the iposition of the death penalty# $n People vs. ,asali%it,
4
in urging, ,ith all due respect,
Congress to consider a propt re2e!aination of the death penalty la,, $ ha(e said%
&he deterination of ,hen to prescribe the death penalty lies, in the initial
instance, ,ith the la,2a4ing authority, the Congress of the /hilippines, sub5ect
to the conditions that the Constitution itself has set forth* viz% ?1@ &hat there ust
be compellin reasons to 5ustify the iposition of the death penalty* and ?+@ &hat
the capital offense ust in(ol(e a %einous crime# $t appears that the fundaental
la, did not conteplate a siple 'reiposition' of the death penalty to offenses
theretofore already pro(ided in the Re(ised /enal Code or, let alone, 5ust
because of it# &he ter 'copelling reasons' ,ould indicate to e that there ust
first be a ar4ed change in the ilieu fro that ,hich has pre(ailed at the tie of
adoption of the 19A> Constitution, on the one hand, to that ,hich e!ists at the
enactent of the statute prescribing the death penalty, upon the other hand, that
,ould a4e it distincti(ely ine!orable to allo, the re2iposition of the death
penalty# Most iportantly, the circustances that ,ould characteri;e the 'heinous
nature' of the crie and a4e it so e!ceptionally offensi(e as to ,arrant the
death penalty ust be spelled out ,ith great clarity in the la,, albeit ,ithout
necessarily precluding the Court fro e!ercising its po,er of 5udicial re(ie, gi(en
the circustances of each case# &o (enture, in the case of urder, the crie
,ould becoe 'heinous' ,ithin the Constitutional concept, ,hen, to e!eplify, the
(icti is unnecessarily sub5ected to a painful and e!cruciating death or, in the
crie of rape, ,hen the offended party is callously huiliated or e(en brutally
4illed by the accused# &he indiscriinate iposition of the death penalty could
soeho, constrain courts to apply, perhaps ,ithout consciously eaning to,
stringent standards for con(iction, not too unli4ely beyond ,hat ight norally
be re.uired in criinal cases, that can, in fact, result in undue e!culpation of
offenders to the great pre5udice of (ictis and society#
&oday, $ reiterate the abo(e (ie, and until the e!acting standards of the Constitution are clearly
et as so hereinabo(e e!pressed, $ ,ill ha(e to disagree, ost respectfully, ,ith y colleagues
in the a5ority ,ho continue to hold the presently structured Republic 7ct <o# >169 to be in
accord ,ith the Constitution, an issue that is fundaental, constant and ine!tricably lin4ed to the
iposition each tie of the death penalty and, li4e the instant petition, to the legal incidents
pertinent thereto#
7ccordingly, $ (ote against the lifting of the restraining order of the Court e(en as $, li4e e(eryone
else, ho,e(er, ust respect and be held bound by the ruling of the a5ority#

/7<:7<$B7<, J.) separate opinion*
$ agree ,ith the Court's Resolution that, ,ithout doubt, this Court has 5urisdiction to issue the
disputed &eporary Restraining )rder ?&R)@ on January 4, 1999# $ ,ill not repeat its ,ell2
reasoned dis.uisition# $ ,rite only to e!plain y (ote in the conte!t of the larger issue of the death
penalty#
"ince the solicitor general has deonstrated that Congress ,ill not repeal or aend R7 >169
during its current session ,hich ends on June 16, 1999 and that, in any e(ent, the /resident ,ill
(eto any such repeal or aendent, the &R) should by its o,n ters be deeed lifted no,#
3o,e(er, y ob5ections to the iposition of the death penalty transcend the &R) and pereate
its 5uridical essence#
$ aintain y (ie, that R7 >169 ?the 'eath /enalty 0a,@ is unconstitutional insofar as soe
parts thereof prescribing the capital penalty fail to coply ,ith the re.uireents of =heinousness=
and =copelling reasons= prescribed by the Constitution of the /hilippines# M &his $ ha(e
repeatedly stated in y 'issenting )pinion in (arious death cases decided by the Court, as ,ell
as during the Court's deliberation on this atter on January 4, 1999# For easy reference, $ hereby
attach a copy of y 'issent proulgated on February >, 199>#
Conse.uently, $ cannot no, (ote to lift &R), because to do so ,ould ean the upholding and
enforceent of la, ?or the rele(ant portions thereof@ ,hich, $ subit ,ith all due respect, is
unconstitutional and therefore legally none!istent# $ also reiterate that, in y huble opinion, R7
A1>> ?the 0ethal $n5ection 0a,@ is li4e,ise unconstitutional since it erely prescribes the anner
in ,hich R7 >169 ? the 'eath /enalty 0a,@ is to ipleented#
3a(ing said that, $ stress, ho,e(er, that $ defer to the rule of la, and ,ill abide by the ruling of the
Court that both R7 >169 and R7 A1>> are constitutional and that death penalty should, by
a5ority (ote, be ipleented by eans of lethal in5ection#
F)R &39 7B)E9 R97")<", $ (ote to deny the solicitor general's Motion for Reconsideration#
:#R# <o# 11>4>+ February >, 199>
/9)/09 )F &39 /3$0$//$<9" (s# 09) 9C39:7R7D y /$0)#
0upplemental ,otion for +econsideration
0'P6+67' OP"N"ON
Deat% Penalt3 8a$ 9nconstitutional
$n his "uppleental Motion for Reconsideration
1
dated 7ugust ++, 1991 filed by his ne,ly2
retained counsel,
+
the accused raises for the first tie a (ery crucial ground for his defense% that
Republic 7ct# <o# >169, the la, reiposing the death penalty, is unconstitutional# $n the Brief and
?original Motion for Reconsideration filed by his pre(ious counsel,
-
this transcendental issue ,as
nor brought up# 3ence, it ,as not passed upon by this Court in its 'ecision affiring the trial
court's sentence of death#
4
7%e *onstitution 6bolis%ed Deat% Penalt3
"ec# 19, 7rticle $$$ of the 19A> Constitution pro(ides%
"ec# 19# ?1@ 9!cessi(e fines shall not be iposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuan punishent inflicted# <either shall death penalty be iposed, unless
for compellin reasons in(ol(ing %einouscries, the Congress hereafter pro(ides
for it# 7ny death penalty alread3 imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua#
?9phasis supplied@
&he second and third sentences of the abo(e pro(ision are ne, and had not been ,ritten in the
19-6, 19>- or e(en in the 19A1 =Freedo Constitution#= &hey proscribe the iposition
6
of the
death penalty =unless for copelling reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries, Congress pro(ides for it,=
and reduced =any death penalty already iposed= to reclusion perpetua# &he pro(ision has both a
prospecti(e aspect ?it bars the future iposition of the penalty@ and a retroacti(e one ?it reduces
iposed capital sentences to the lesser penalty of iprisonent@#
&his t,o2fold aspect is significant# $t stresses that the Constitution did not erely suspend the
iposition of the death penalty, but in fact copletely abolished it fro the statute boo4s# &he
autoatic coutation or reduction to reclusion perpetua of any death penalty e!tant as of the
effecti(ity of the Constitution clearly recogni;es that, ,hile the con(iction of an accused for a
capital crie reains, death as a penalty ceased to e!ist in our penal la,s and thus ay longer
be carried out# &his is the clear intent of the fraers of our Constitution# 7s Co# Bernas e!2
claied,
1
=?t@he a5ority (oted for the constitutional abolition of the death penalty#=
Citing this and other siilar pronounceents of the distinguished Conco delegate, Me#
Justice 7eurfina Melencio23errera ephasi;ed,
>
=$t is thus clear that ,hen Fr# Bernas
sponsored the pro(ision regarding the non2iposition of the death penalty, ,hat he had in ind
,as the total abolition and reo(al fro the statute boo4s of the death penalty# &his becae the
intent of the fraes of the Constitution ,hen they appro(ed the pro(ision and ade it a part of
the Bill of Rights#= Cith such abolition as a preise, restoration thereof becoes an e!ception to
a constitutional andate# Being an e!ception and thus in derogation of the Constitution, it ust
then be strictly construed against the "tate and liberally in fa(or of the people#
A
$n this light, R7
>169 en5oys no presuption of constitutionality#
7%e *onstitution 0trictl3 8imits
*onressional Preroative to Prescribe Deat%
&o e, it is (ery clear that the Constitution ?1@ effecti(ely reo(ed the death penalty fro the then
e!isting statutes but ?+@ authori;ed Congress to restore it at soe future tie to enable or
epo,er courts to reipose it on condition that it ?Congress@
9
finds =copelling reasons,
in(ol(ing heinous cries#= &he language of the Constitution is ephatic ?e(en if =a,4,ard=
10
@% the
authority of Congress to =pro(ide for it= is not absolute# Rather, it is strictly liited%
1# by =copelling reasons= that ay arise after the Constitution becae effecti(e*
and
+# to cries ,hich Congress should identify or define or characteri;e as =heinous#=
&he Constitution ine!orably placed upon Congress the burden of deterining the e!istence of
=copelling reasons= and of defining ,hat cries are =heinous= before it could e!ercise its la,2
a4ing prerogati(e to restore the death penalty# For clarity's sa4e, ay $ ephasi;e that
Congress, by la,* prescribes the death penalty on certain cries* and courts, by their
decisions, impose it on indi(idual offenders found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of coitting
said cries#
$n the e!ercise of this fundaental andate, Congress enacted R7
>169
11
to =pro(ide for it= ?the death penalty@ ?1@ by aending certain pro(isions of the Re(ised
/enal Code*
1+
?+@ by incorporating a ne, article therein*
1-
and ?-@ by aending certain special
la,s#
14
But R7 >169 did not change the nature or the eleents of the cries stated in the /enal Code
and in the special la,s# $t erely ade the penalty ore se(ere# <either did its pro(isions ?other
than the preable, ,hich ,as cast in general ters@ discuss or 5ustify the reasons for the ore
se(er sanction, either collecti(ely for all the offenses or indi(idually for each of the#
:enerally, it erely reinstated the concept of and the ethod by ,hich the death penalty had
been iposed until February +, 19A>, ,hen the Constitution too4 effect as follo,s% ?1@ a person is
con(icted of a capital offense* and ?+@ the coission of ,hich ,as accopanied by aggra(ating
circustances not out,eighed by itigating circustances#
&he basic .uestion then is% $n enacting R7 >169, did Congress e!ceed the liited authority
granted it by the ConstitutionN More legally put% $t re(i(ing the death penalty, did Congress act
,ith gra(e abuse of discretion or in e!cess of the (ery liited po,er or 5urisdiction conferred on it
by 7rt# $$$, "ec# 19N &he ans,er, $ respectfully subit, is D9"#
:einous *rimes
&o repeal, ,hile he Constitution liited the po,er of Congress to prescribe the death penalty
)<0D to =heinous= cries, it did not define or characteri;e the eaning of =heinous=# <either did
Congress# 7s already stated, R7 >169 itself erely selected soe e!isting cries for ,hich it
prescribed death as an applicable penalty# $t did not gi(e a standard or a characteri;ation by
,hich courts ay be able to appreciate the heinousness of a crie# $ concede that Congress ,as
only too ,ell a,are of its constitutionally liited po,er# $n deference thereto, it included a
paragraph in the preabular or =,hereas= clauses of R7 >169, as follo,s%
C39R97", the cries punishable by death under this 7ct are heinous for being
grie(ous, odious and hateful offenses and ,hich, by reason of their inherent or
anifest ,ic4edness, (iciousness, atrocity and per(ersity are repugnant and
outrageous to the coon standards and nors of decency and orality in a
5ust, ci(ili;ed and ordered society#
$n y huble (ie,, ho,e(er, the foregoing clause is clearly an insufficient definition or
characteri;ation of ,hat a heinous crie is# $t siply and gratuitously declared certain cries to
be =heinous= ,ithout ade.uately 5ustifying its bases therefor# $t supplies no useful, ,or4able, clear
and unabiguous standard by ,hich the presence of heinousness can be deterined# Calling the
cries =grie(ous, odious and hateful= is not a substitute for an ob5ecti(e 5uridical definition#
<either is the description =inherent or anifest ,ic4edness, (iciousness, atrocity and per(ersity#=
'escribing blood as blue does not detract fro its being crison in fact* and renaing guaela
as rose ,ill not ar it ,ith thorns#
Besides, a preable is really not an integral part of a la,# $t is erely an introduction to sho, its
intent or purposes# $t cannot be the origin of rights and obligations# Chere the eaning of a
statute is clear and unabiguous, the preable can neither e!pand nor restrict its operation,
uch less pre(ail o(er its te!t#
16
$n this case, it cannot be the authoritati(e source to sho,
copliance ,ith the Constitution#
7s already alluded to, R7 >169 erely aended certain la,s to prescribe death as the a!iu
iposable penalty once the court appreciates the presence or absence of aggra(ating
circustances#
11
$n other ,ords, it 5ust reinstated capital punishent for cries ,hich ,ere already punishable ,ith
death prior to the effecti(ity of the 19A> Constitution# Cith the possible e!ception of plunder and
.ualified bribery,
1>
no ne, cries ,ere introduced by R7 >169# &he offenses punished by death
under said la, ,ere already to punishable by the Re(ised /enal Code
1A
and by special la,s#
'uring the debate on "enate Bill <o# A91 ,hich later becae R7 >169, "en# Jose 0ina, in
ans,er to a .uestion of "en# 9rnesto Maceda, ,ryly said%
19
"o ,e did not go that far fro the Re(ised /enal Code, Mr# /resident, and fro
e!isting special la,s ,hich, before abolition of the death penalty, had already
death as the a!iu penalty#
By erely reiposing capital punishent on the (ery sae cries ,hich ,ere already penali;ed
,ith death prior to the charter's effecti(ity, Congress $ subit has not fulfilled its specific and
positi(e constitutional duty# $f the Constitutional Coission intended erely to allo, Congress
to prescribe death for these (ery sae cries, it ,ould not ha(e ,ritten "ec# 19 of 7rticle $$$ into
the fundaental la,# But the stubborn fact is it did# Eerily, the intention to 1@ delete the death
penalty fro our criinal la,s and +@ a4e its restoration possible only under and sub5ect to
stringent conditions is e(ident not only fro the language of the Constitution but also fro the
charter debates on this atter#
&he critical phrase =unless for copelling reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries= ,as an aendent
introduced by Co# Christian Monsod# $n e!plaining ,hat possible cries could .ualify as
heinous, he and Co# Jose "uare; agreed on =organi;ed urder= or =brutal urder of a rape
(icti=#
+0
<ote that the honorable coissioners did not 5ust say =urder= but organi;ed urder*
not 5ust rape but brutal murder of a rape (icti# Chile the debates ,ere adittedly rather scanty, $
belie(e that the a(ailable inforation sho,s that, ,hen deliberating on =heinousness=, the
Constitutional Coission did not ha(e in ind the offenses already e!isting and already
penali;ed ,ith death# $ also belie(e that the heinousness clause re.uires that%
1# the cries should be entirely ne, offenses, the eleents of ,hich ha(e an
inherent .uality, degree or le(el of per(ersity, depra(ity or (iciousness unheard of
until then* or
2. e(en e!isting cries, provided soe ne, eleent or essential ingredient li4e
=organi;ed= or =brutal= is added to sho, their utter per(ersity, odiousness or
ale(olence* or
-@ the eans or ethod by ,hich the crie, ,hether ne, or old, is carried out
e(inces a degree or agnitude of e!tree (iolence, e(il, cruelty, atrocity,
(iciousness as to deonstrate its heinousness#
+1
For this purpose, Congress could enact an entirely ne, set of circustances to .ualify the crie
as =heinous=, in the sae anner that the presence of treachery in a hoicide aggra(ates the
crie to urder for ,hich a hea(ier penalty is prescribed#
*ompellin +easons
Fuite apart fro re.uiring the attendant eleent of heinousness, the Constitution also directs
Congress to deterine =copelling reasons= for the re(i(al of the capital penalty# $t is true that
paragraphs - and 4 of the preable of R7 >169
++
ade soe attept at eeting this
re.uireent# But such effort ,as at best feeble and inconse.uential# $t should be reebered
that e(ery ,ord or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should ne(er be ignored, ca(alierly2
treated or brushed aside# &hus, $ belie(e that the copelling reasons and the characteri;ation of
heinousness cannot be done ,holesale but ust sho,n for each and e(ery crie, indi(idually
and separately#
&he ,ords =copelling reasons= ,ere included in the Charter because, in the ,ords of Co#
Monsod, =in the future, circustances ay arise ,hich ,e should not preclude today # # # and that
the conditions and the situation ?during the deliberations of the Constitutional Coission@ ight
change for (ery specific reasons= re.uiring the return of the constitutionally2abhorred penalty#
$n his sponsorship of 3ouse Bill <o# 1+ ,hich later e(ol(ed into R7 >169, Congressan /ablo
:arcia, in ans,er to .uestions raised by Representati(e 9dcel 0agan tried to e!plain these
copelling reasons%
+-
MR# 07:M7<% 0o $%at are t%e compellin reasons no$) ,r. 0pea4er; # # #
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &he ,orsening peace and order condition in the country, Mr#
"pea4er# &hat is one#
MR# 07:M7<# "o the copelling reason ,hich the distinguished sponsor ,ould
li4e to 5ustify or ser(e as an anchor for the 5ustification of the reiposition of the
death penalty is the alleged ,orsening peace and order situation# &he
:entlean clais that is one the copelling reasons# But before ,e dissent this
particular =copelling reason,= ma3 $e 4no$ $%at are t%e ot%er compellin
reasons) ,r. 0pea4er;
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@ Justice, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Justice#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Des, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Justice is a copelling reason, Mr# "pea4erN Could the
:entlean 4indly elaborate on that ans,erN Chy is 5ustice a copelling reason
as if 5ustice ,as not obtained at the tie the Constitution abolished the death
penaltyN 7ny copelling reason should be a super(ening circustances after
19A>#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Mr# "pea4er, $ ha(e repeatedly said again and again that if
one li(es in an organi;ed society go(erned by la,, 5ustice deands that crie be
punished and that the penalty iposed be coensurate ,ith the offense
coitted#
MR# 07:M7<# &he :entlean ,ould agree ,ith e that ,hen the Constitution
spea4s of the copelling reasons to 5ustify the reiposition of death penalty, it
refers to reasons ,hich ,ould super(ene or coe after the appro(al of the 19A>
Constitution# $s he subitting that 5ustice, in his o,n concept of a coensurate
penalty for the offense coitted, ,as not obtained in 19A> ,hen the
Constitution abolished the death penalty and the people ratified itN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &hat is precisely ,hy ,e are saying that no,, under present
conditions, because of the seriousness of the offenses being coitted at this
tie, 5ustice deands that the appropriate penalty ust be eted out for those
,ho ha(e coitted heinous cries#
!!! !!! !!!
$n short, Congressan :arcia in(o4ed the preabular 5ustifications of =,orsening peace and
order= and =5ustice=# Cith all due respect $ subit that these grounds are not =copelling= enough
to 5ustify the re(i(al of state2decreed deaths# $n fact, $ dare say that these =reasons= ,ere e(en
non2e!istent# "tatistics fro the /hilippine <ational /olice sho, that the crie (olue and crie
rate particularly on those legislated capital offenses did not ,orsen but in fact declined bet,een
19A>, the date ,hen the Constitution too4 effect, and 199-, the year ,hen R7 >169 ,as enacted#
Citness the follo,ing debate
+4
also bet,een Representati(es :arcia and 0agan%
MR# 07:M7<# Eery good, Mr# "pea4er#
<o,, can ,e go to 19A># Could the :entlean fro Cebu infor us the (olue
of the crie of urder in 19A>N
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# &he (olue of the crie of urder in 19A> is 1+,-06#
MR# 07:M7<# "o, the corresponding crie rate ,as +1 percent#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Des, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# &hat ,as in 19A>, Mr# "pea4er, could the distinguished chairan
infor us the (olue of urder in 19AAN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as 10,6+1, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Or it $as a reduction from 12)<=> in 198? to 1=)>21 in 1988.
*orrespondinl3) t%e crime rate in t%e ver3 3ear after t%e abolition of t%e deat%
penalt3 $as reduced from 21 percent to 18 percent. "s t%at correct) ,r. 0pea4er;
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%at is correct) ,r. 0pea4er# &hose are the statistics supplied
by the /C#
MR# 07:M7<# <o, can ,e go again to 19A> ,hen the Constitution abolished
the death penaltyN May ,e 4no, fro the distinguished :entlean the (olue
of robbery in 19A>N
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# Cill the :entlean state the figureN $ ,ill confir it#
MR# 07:M7<# <o, Mr# "pea4er, $ a as4ing the .uestion#
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as ++,94+, Mr# "pea4er, and the crie rate ,as 40
percent#
MR# 07:M7<# &his ,as the year iediately after the abolition of the death
penalty# Could the :entlean tell us the (olue of robbery cases in 19AAN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# $t ,as 11,9+1, Mr# "pea4er#
MR# 07:M7<# Obviousl3, t%e 1entleman $ould aree $it% me# ,r# 0pea4er t%at
t%e volume of robber3 cases declined from 22)9@2 in 198? or crime rate of @=
percent to 1A)92A or a crime rate of 29 percent# Bould t%e 1entleman confirm
t%at, ,r# 0pea4erN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%is is $%at t%e statistics sa3, $ understand ,e are reading
no, fro the sae docuent#
MR# 07:M7<# <o,, going to hoicide, the (olue 19A> ,as 1+,A>0 or a crie
rate of ++ percent# &he (olue in 19AA ,as 11,1-+ or a crie rate of 19 percent#
Could the :entlean confir that, Mr# "pea4erN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7s $ "aid, Mr# "pea4er, ,e are reading fro the sae
docuent and $ ,ould not ,ant to say that the :entlean is isreading the
docuent that $ ha(e here#
MR# 07:M7<# But ,ould the :entlean confir thatN
MR# :7RC$7 ?/#@# 7%e document spea4s for itself.
Chen interpellated by "en# 7rturo &olentino, "en# Jose 0ina ga(e soe figures on the nuber of
persons arrested in regard to drug2related offenses in the year 19A> as copared to 1991%
+6
0et e cite this concrete statistics by the 'angerous 'rug Board#
$n 19A> I this ,as the year ,hen the death penalty ,as abolished I the
persons arrested in drug2related cases ,ere -,01+, and the figure dropped to
+,1A1 in 19AA#
By the ,ay, $ ,ill furnish y Colleagues ,ith a photocopy of this report#
Fro -,01+ in 19A>, it dropped to +,1A1# 7gain, it increased a bit to +,A1+ in
19A9# $t still decreased to +,+0+ in 1990, and it increased again to +,A1+ in 1991#
But in 19A>, ,hen the death penalty ,as abolished, as far as the drug2related
cases are concerned, the figure continued a do,n,ard trend, and there ,as no
death penalty in this tie fro, 19AA to 1991#
$n a further attept to sho, copelling reasons, the proponents of the death penalty argue that
its reiposition =,ould pose as an effecti(e deterrent against heinous cries#=
+1
3o,e(er no
statistical data, no sufficient proof, epirical or other,ise, ha(e been subitted to sho, ,ith any
conclusi(eness the relationship bet,een the prescription of the death penalty for certain offenses
and the coission or non2coission thereof# &his is a theory that can be debated on and
on,
+>
in the sae anner that another proposition I that the real deterrent to crie is
the certaint3 of immediate arrest) prosecution and conviction of the culprit ,ithout unnecessary
ris4, e!pense and incon(enience to the (icti, his heirs or his ,itnesses I can be argued
indefinitely#
+A
&his debate can last till the acadeics gro, ,eary of the spo4en ,ord, but it ,ould
not lessen the constitutionally2iposed burden of Congress to act ,ithin the =heinousness= and
=copelling reasons= liits of its death2prescribing po,er#
Ot%er *onstitutional +i%ts
,ilitate 6ainst +6 ?A>9
$t should be ephasi;ed that the constitutional ban against the death penalty is included in our
Bill of Rights# 7s such, it should I li4e any other guarantee in fa(or of the accused I be
;ealously protected,
+9
and any e!ception thereto eticulously screened# 7ny doubt should be
resol(ed in fa(or of the people, particularly ,here the right pertains to persons accused of
cries#
-0
3ere the issue is not 5ust cries I but capital criesO
"o too, all our pre(ious Constitutions, including the first one ordained at Malolos, guarantee that
=?n@o person shall be depri(ed of life, liberty or property ,ithout due process of la,#=
-1
&his
priary right of the people to en5oy life I life at its fullest, life in dignity and honor I is not only
reiterated by the 19A> Charter but is in fact fortified by its other pro2life and pro2huan rights
pro(isions# 3ence, the Constitution (alues the dignity of e(ery huan person and guarantees full
respect for huan rights,
-+
e!pressly prohibits any for of torture
--
,hich is arguably a lesser
penalty than death, ephasi;es the indi(idual right to life by gi(ing protection to the life of the
other and the unborn fro the oent of conception
-4
and establishes the people's rights to
health, a balanced ecology and education#
-6
&his Constitutional e!plosion of concern for an ore than property for people ore than the
state, and for life ore than ere e!istence augurs ,ell for the strict application of the
constitutional liits against the re(i(al of death penalty as the final and irre(ersible e!action of
society against its percei(ed eneies#
$ndeed, (olues ha(e been ,ritten about indi(idual rights to free speech# assebly and e(en
religion# But the ost basic and ost iportant of these rights is the right to life# Cithout life, the
other rights cease in their en5oyent, utility and e!pression#
&his opinion ,ould not be coplete ,ithout a ,ord on the ,renching fact that the death penalty
ilitates against the poor, the po,erless and the arginali;ed# &he =/rofile of 116 'eath Ro,
Con(icts= subitted by the Free 0egal 7ssistance :roup
-1
highlights this sad fact%
1. "ince the reiposition of the death penalty, 1A1 persons
->
ha(e been sentenced
to death# 7t the end of 1994, there ,ere +4 death penalty con(icts, at the end of
1996, the nuber rose to 90* an a(erage of se(en ?>@ con(icts per onth* double
the onthly a(erage of capital sentences iposed the prior year# Fro January
to June 1991, the nuber of death penalty con(icts reached >+, an a(erage of
1+ con(icts per onth, alost double the onthly a(erage of capital sentences
iposed in 1996#
+# )f the 116 con(icts polled, appro!iately t,enty one percent ?+1H@ earn
bet,een /+00 to /+,900 onthly* ,hile appro!iately t,enty se(en percent
?+>H@ earn bet,een /-,000 to /-,999 onthly# &hose earning abo(e /4,000
onthly are e!ceedingly fe,% se(en percent ?>H@ earn bet,een /4,000 to
/4,999, four percent ?4H@ earn bet,een /6,000 to /6,999, se(en percent ?>H@
earn bet,een /1,000 to /1,999, those earning bet,een />,000 to /16,000
coprise only four percent ?4H@, those earning /16,000 and abo(e only one
percent ?1H@# 7ppro!iately thirteen percent ?1-H@ earn nothing at all, ,hile
appro!iately t,o percent ?+H@ earn subsistence ,ages ,ith another fi(e
percent ?6H@ earning (ariable incoe# 7ppro!iately nine percent ?9H@ do not
4no, ho, uch they earn in a onth#
-# &hus, appro!iately t,o2thirds of the con(icts, about 11+ of the, earn belo,
the go(ernent2andated iniu onthly ,age of /4,+90* ten ?10@ of these
earn belo, the official po(erty line set by go(ernent# &,enty si! ?+1@ earn
bet,een /4,600#00 and /11,0000#00 onthly, indicating they belong to the
iddle class* only one ?1@ earns /-0#000#00 onthly# <ine ?9@ con(icts earn
(ariable incoe or earn on a percentage or allo,ance basis* fifteen ?16@ con(icts
do not 4no, or are unsure of their onthly incoe# &,enty t,o ?++@ con(icts
earn nothing at all#
4# $n ters of occupation, appro!iately t,enty one percent ?+1H@ are agricultural
,or4ers or ,or4ers in anial husbandry* of these thirty ?-0@, or alost one2fifth
thereof, are farers# &hirty fi(e percent ?-6H@ are in the transport and
construction industry, ,ith thirty one ?-1@ construction ,or4ers or ,or4ers in
allied fields ?carpentry, painting, ,elding@ ,hile t,enty se(en ?+>@ are transport
,or4ers ?deli(ery, dispatcher, echanic, tire an, truc4 helper@ ,ith si!teen ?11@
of the dri(ers# 9ighteen percent ?1AH@ are in clerical, sales and ser(ice
industries, ,ith fourteen ?14@ sales ,or4ers ?engaged in buy and sell or fish,
cigarette or rice (endors@, t,el(e ?1+@ ser(ice ,or4ers ?butchers, beauticians,
security guards, shoea4ers, tour guides, coputer prograers, radio
technicians@ and four ?4@ cler4s ?5anitors, M9R70C) eployee and cler4@ 7bout
four percent ?4H@ are go(ernent ,or4ers, ,ith si! ?1@ persons belonging to the
ared ser(ices ?7F/, /</ and e(en C7F:U@# /rofessionals, adinistrati(e
eployee and e!ecuti(es coprise only three percent ?-H@, nine percent ?9H@
are uneployed#
6# <one of the 'RC's use 9nglish as their ediu of counication# 7bout forty
four percent ?44H@, or slightly less than half spea4 and understand &agalog*
t,enty si! percent ?+1H@, or about one2fourth, spea4 and understand Cebuano#
&he rest spea4 and understand Bicolano, $locano, $longgo, Gapapangan,
/angasinense and Caray# )ne ?1@ con(ict is a foreign national and spea4s and
understand <iponggo#
1# 7ppro!iately t,el(e percent ?1+H@ graduated fro college, about forty se(en
percent ?4>H@ finished (arying le(els of eleentary education ,ith t,enty se(en
?+>@ graduating fro eleentary# 7bout thirty fi(e percent ?-6H@, fifty eight ?6A@
con(icts, finished (arying le(els of high school, ,ith ore than half of the
graduating fro high school# &,o ?+@ con(icts finished (ocational education* nine
?9@ con(icts did not study at all#
&he foregoing profile based on age, language and socio2econoic situations sufficiently
deonstrates that R7 >169 has ilitated against the poor and the po,erless in society I those
,ho cannot afford the legal ser(ices necessary in capital cries, ,here e!tensi(e preparation,
in(estigation, research and presentation are re.uired# &he best e!aple to shoe the sad plight of
the underpri(ileged is this (ery case ,here the crucial issue of constitutionality ,as ,oefully
oitted in the proceedings in the trial court and e(en before this Court until the Free legal
7ssistance :roup belatedly brought it up in the "uppleental Motion for Reconsideration#
&o the poor and unlettered, it is bad enough that the la, is cople! and ,ritten in a strange,
incoprehensible language# Corse still, 5udicial proceedings are thesel(es coplicated,
intiidating and daning# &he net effect of ha(ing a death penalty that is iposed ore often
than not upon the ipecunious is to engender in the inds of the latter, a sense I unfounded, to
be sure, but unhealthy ne(ertheless I of the une.ual balance of the scales of 5ustice#
Most assuredly, it ay be contended that the foregoing arguents, and in particular, the statistics
abo(e2cited, are in a (ery real sense prone to be isleading, and that regardless of the socio2
econoic profile of the 'RCs, the la, re(i(ing capital punishent does not in any ,ay single out
or discriinate against the poor, the unlettered or the underpri(ileged# &o put it in another ,ay, as
far as the disad(antaged are concerned, the la, ,ould still be cople! and ,ritten in a strange
and incoprehensible language, and 5udicial proceedings coplicated and intiidating, ,hether
the ultiate penalty in(ol(ed be life ?sentence@ or death# 7nother aspect of the ,hole contro(ersy
is that, ,hate(er the penalties set by la,, it sees to e that there ,ill al,ays be certain class or
classes of people in our society ,ho, by reason of their po(erty, lac4 of educational attainent
and eployent opportunities, are conse.uently confined to li(ing, ,or4ing and subsisting in
less2than2ideal en(ironents, aidst less2than2genteel neighbors siilarly situated as
thesel(es, and are therefore inherently ore prone to be in(ol(ed ?as (ictis or perpetrators@ in
(ices, (iolence and crie# "o fro that perspecti(e, the la, re(i(ing the death penalty neither
ipro(es nor ,orsens their lot substantially# )r, to be ore precise, such la, ay e(en be said
to help ipro(e their situation ?at least in theory@ by posing a uch stronger deterrent to the
coission of heinous cries#
3o,e(er, such a (ie,point siply ignores the (ery basic differences that e!ist in the situations of
the poor and the non2poor# /recisely because the underpri(ileged are ,hat they are, they re.uire
and deser(e a greater degree of protection and assistance fro our la,s and Constitution, and
fro the courts and the "tate, so that in spite of thesel(es, they can be epo,ered to rise
abo(e thesel(es and their situation# &he basic postulates for such a position are, $ thin4, siply
that e(eryone ultiately ,ants to better hiself and that ,e cannot better oursel(es indi(idually
to any significant degree if ,e are unable to ad(ance as an entire people and nation# 7ll the pro2
poor pro(isions of the Constitution point in this direction# Det ,e are faced ,ith this la, that
effecti(ely inflicts the ultiate punishent on none other than the poor and disad(antaged in the
greater a5ority of cases, and ,hich penalty, being so ob(iously final and so irre(ersibly
peranent, erases all hope of refor, of change for the better# &his la,, $ subit, has no place in
our legal, 5udicial and constitutional firaent#
'piloue
$n su, $ respectfully subit that%
1# &he 19A> Constitution abolished the death penalty fro our statute boo4s# $t did not
erely suspend or prohibit its iposition#
+# &he Charter effecti(ely granted a ne, right% the constitution right against the death
penalty, ,hich is really a species of the right to life#
-# 7ny la, re(i(ing the capital penalty ust be strictly construed against the "tate and
liberally in fa(or of the accused because such a stature denigrates the Constitution,
ipinges on a basic right and tends to deny e.ual 5ustice to the underpri(ileged#
4# 9(ery ,ord or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should ne(er be ignored,
ca(alierly2treated or brushed aside#
6# Congressional po,er death is severel3 liited by t,o concurrent re.uireents%
a# !irst, Congress ust pro(ide a set of attendant circustances ,hich the
prosecution ust pro(e beyond reasonable doubt, apart fro the eleents of the
crie and itself# Congress ust e!plain ,hy and ho, these circustances define
or characteri;e the crie as =heinous=#
0econd, Congress has also the duty of laying out clear and specific reasons ,hich arose after the
effecti(ity of the Constitution copelling the enactent of the la,# $t bears repeating that these
re.uireents are inseparable# &hey ust both be present in (ie, of the specific constitutional
andate I =for copelling reasons in(ol(ing heinous cries#= &he copelling reason ust flo,
fro the heinous nature of the offense#
1. $n e(ery la, re(i(ing the capital penalty, the heinousness and copelling reasons ust
be set out for eac% and ever3 crie, and not 5ust for all cries generally and collecti(ely#
=&hou shall not 4ill= is fundaental coandent to all Christians, as ,ell as to the rest of the
=so(ereign Filipino people= ,ho belie(e in 7lighty :od#
-A
Chile the Catholic Church, to ,hich
the (ast a5ority of our people belong, ac4no,ledges the po,er of public authorities to prescribe
the death penalty, it ad(isedly liits such prerogati(e only to =cases of e!tree
gra(ity#=
-9
&o .uote /ope John /aul $$ in his encyclical 'vanelium /itae ?7 3yn to
0ife@,
40
=punishent ust be carefully e(aluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the
e!tree of e!ecuting the offender e!cept in cases of absolute necessity% in other ,ords, $%en it
$ould not be possible ot%er$ise to defend societ3 . . . C$%ic% isD ver3 rare) if not practicall3 non2
existent#=
7lthough not absolutely banning it, both the Constitution and the Church indubitably abhor the
death penalty# Both are pro2people and pro2life# Both clearly recogni;e the priacy of huan life
o(er and abo(e e(en the state ,hich an created precisely to protect, cherish and defend hi#
&he Constitution reluctantly allo,s capital punishent only for =copelling reasons in(ol(ing
heinous cries= 5ust as the Church grudgingly perits it only reasons of =absolute necessity=
in(ol(ing cries of =e!tree gra(ity=, ,hich are (ery rare and practically non2e!istent#
$n the face of these e(ident truiss, $ as4% 3as the Congress, in enacting R7 >169, aply
discharged its constitutional burden of pro(ing the e!istence of =copelling reasons= to prescribe
death against ,ell2defined =heinous= criesN
$ respectfully subit it has not#
C39R9F)R9, the preises considered, $ respectfully (ote to grant partially the "uppleental
Motion for Reconsideration and to odify the dispositi(e portion of the decision of the trial court
by deleting the ,ords ='97&3=, as pro(ided for under R7 >169,= and substitute
therefore reclusion perpetua#
$ further (ote to declare R7 >169 unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death for
the cries entioned in its te!t#
Footnotes
1 "toll (# :ottlieb, -06 U" 116, 1>+* 69 "# Ct# 1-4, 1-A* A- 0# ed# 104 K19-AL#
+ /hilippine Courts and their Jurisdiction, p# 1-, 199A ed#
- *itin Miranda (# &iangco, 91 /hil# 6+1* "antos (# 7cuna, 100 /hil# +-0*
7erican $nsurance Co# (# U" 0ines Co#, 1- "CR7 -+6* Republic (# Reyes, >1
"CR7 4+1* 0u;on "te(edoring Corp# (# Reyes, >1 "CR7 166* 7gricultural and
$ndustrial Mar4eting $nc# (# C7, 11A "CR7 49* Easco (# C7, A1 "CR7 >1+*
Mindanao /ortland Ceent Corp# (# 0a.uihan, 1+0 "CR7 9-0#
4 "bid#, at pp# 1+214, citin Miranda (# &iangco, 91 /hil# 6+1* "antos (# 7cuna, 1-
)#:# -6A* Cabaya (# 3on# R# Mendo;a, 11- "CR7 400* Bueno $ndustrial and
'e(elopent Corp# (# 9nca5e, 104 "CR7 -AA#
6 "bid., pp# 14216 citin Molina (# dela Ri(a, A /hil# 619* Behn Meyer P Co# (#
McMic4ing, 11 /hil# +>1* Carer Barnes P Co# (# Jaucian, 1- /hil# 4* 9spiritu (#
Crossfield, 14 /hil# 6AA* Mata (# 0ichauco, -1 /hil# A09* 'e la Costa (# Cleofas,
1> /hil# 1A1* )ar (# Jose, >> /hil# >0-* City of Butuan (# )rti;, 11- /hil# 1-1*
'e los "antos (# Rodrigue;, ++ "CR7 661* City of Cebu (# Mendo;a, 11 "CR7
1>4#
1 +9 /hil# +1> ?1916@, p# +>0#
> "ec# 1, 7rticle E$$$ of the 19A> Constitution#
A "ec# 6?f@, Rule 1-6#
9 /hilippine /olitical 0a,, p# ++6, 199- ed#
10 94 /hil# 6-4 ?1964@, pp# 6602666#
11 R#7# <o# ->+#
1+ 94 /hil# 660, p# 661#
1- 0ee $n re $ntegration of the Bar of the /hilippines, January 9, 19>-, 49 "CR7
++#
14 0ee pp# -24 of Urgent Motion for Reconsideration#
16 0ee 7rt# >9 of the Re(ised /enal Code#
11 Modern Constitutional 0a,, Eol# 1, p# 409, 1919 ed#, citin Caritati(o (#
California, -6> U" 649, +1 0 ed# +d 16-1, >A "# Ct# 1+1- K196AL#
1> 'eceber -0 and -1, 199A ,ere declared holidays# January 1, 1999 ,as an
official holiday# January + ,as a "aturday and January - ,as a "unday#
1A Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of /ublic respondents, p# A#
19 'arro,, Crie% $ts Cause and &reatent, p# 111 ?19++@#
+0 9isler, 7 Justice For 7ll, p# +1A#
+1 =Chere personal liberty is in(ol(ed, a deocratic society eploys a different
arithetic and insists that it is less iportant to reach an unsha4able decision
than to do 5ustice#= /ollac4, /roposals to Curtail 3abeas Corpus for "tate
/risoners% Collateral 7ttac4 on the :reat Crit# 11 Dale 0J 60, 16 ?1961@#
E$&U:, J#, separate opinion*
1 Candelana (s# CaQi;ares, 4 "CR7 >-A* /hilippine Eeterans Ban4 (s#
$nterediate 7ppellate Court, 1>A "CR7 646, 0ipana (s# 'e(elopent Ban4 of
Ri;al, 164 "CR7 +6>* 0ee (s# 'e :u;an, 1A> "CR7 +>1, Bachrach
Corporation (s# Court of 7ppeals, :#R# <o# 1+A-49, +6 "epteber 199A#
+ +9 /hil +1>#
- 7t least for Mr# 9chegaray#
4 :#R# <o 1+4-+9, 14 'eceber 199A#
/7<:7<$B7<, J#, separate opinion*
M $ ha(e further e!plained y unflinching position on this atter in y recent
boo4 Battles in the "upree Court, particularly on page 6A to A4#
"eparate opinion*
1 $t is called ="uppleental= because there ,as a ?ain@ Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the pre(ious counsel of the accused, ,hich this Court
already denied#
+ &he 7nti 'eath /enalty &as4 Force of the Free 0egal 7ssistance :roup I
/ablito E# "anidad, Jose Manuel $# 'io4no, 7rno E# "anidad, 9fren Moncupa,
9duardo R# 7baya and Ma# Eictoria $# 'io4no I filed its <otice of 7ppearance
dated 7ugust ++, 1991 only on 7ugust +-, 1991, after the Per *uriam'ecision of
this Court ,as proulgated on June +6, 1991#
- 7tty# Julian R# Eitug, Jr#
4 &he bul4 of 5urisprudence precludes raising an issue for the first tie only on
appeal# 0ee, for instance, Manila Bay Club Corporation (s# Court of 7ppeals, +49
"CR7 -0-, )ctober 1-, 1996* Manila Bay Club Corporation (s# Court of 7ppeals,
+46 "CR7 >16, July 11, 1996* "ecurities and 9!change Coission (s# Court of
7ppeals, +41 "CR7 >-A, July +1, 1996# 3o,e(er, the Court resol(ed to tac4le
the .uestion of constitutionality of Republic 7ct <o# >169 in this case, anticipating
that the sae .uestion ,ould be raised any,ay in any other subse.uent
instances# &he Court resol(ed to deterine and dispose of the issue once and
for all, at the first opportunity# &o let the issue pass unresol(ed 5ust because it
,as raised after the proulgation of the decision affiring con(iction ay result
in gra(e in5ustice#
6 $n /eople (s# MuQo;, 1>0 "CR7 10>, February 9, 19A9, the Court, prior to the
enactent and effecti(ity of R7 >169, ruled by a (ote of 921 ?J# Cru;, ponente,
C#J# Fernan, JJ#, :utierre;, Jr#, Feliciano, :ancayco, /adilla, Bidin, :riQo27.uino
and Medialdea, concurring@ that the death penalty ,as not abolished but only
prohibited fro iposed# But see also the persuasi(e 'issenting )pinion of
Me# Justice 7eurfina Melencio23errera ?5oined by JJ# <ar(asa, /aras,
"ariento, Cortes and Regalado@ ,ho contended that the Constitution totally
abolished the death penalty and reo(ed it for the statute boo4s# /eople (s#
MuQo; re(ersed the earlier =abolition= doctrine uniforly held in /eople (s#
:a(arra, 166 "CR7 -+>, )ctober -0, 19A>, ?per C#J# Dap@* /eople (s#
Masang4ay, 166 "CR7 11-, )ctober +>, 19A>, ?per J# Melencio23errera@ and
/eople (s# 7tencio, 161 "CR7 +4+, 'eceber 10, 19A> ?per C#J# <ar(asa@# $t is
tie that these cases are re(isited by this Court#
1 &his .uote is ta4en fro $ Record of the Constitutional Coission, p# 1>1
?July 1>, 19A1@ as follo,s%
Fr# Bernas%
!!! !!! !!!
My recollection on this is that there ,as a di(ision in the Coittee not on
,hether the death penalty should be abolished or not, but rather on ,hether the
abolition should be done by the Constitution I in ,hich case it cannot be
restored by the legislature I or left to the legislature# 7%e majorit3 voted for t%e
constitutional abolition of t%e deat% penalt3# 7nd the reason is that capital
punishent is inhuan for the con(ict and his faily ,ho are trauati;ed by the
,aiting, e(en if it is ne(er carried out# &here is no e(idence that death penalty
deterred deadly criinals, hence, life should not be destroyed 5ust in the hope
that other li(es ight be sa(ed# 7ssuing astery o(er the life of another an is
5ust too presuptuous for any an# &he fact that the death penalty as an
institution has been there fro tie ieorial should not deter us fro
re(ie,ing it# 3uan life is ore (aluable than an institution intended precisely to
ser(e huan life# "o basically, this is the suary of the reason ,hich ,ere
presented in support of the constitutional abolition of the death penalty ?ephasis
supplied@
> 'issenting )pinion in /eople (s# MuQo;, supra, p# 1+9#
A &hus in /eople (s# Burgos, 144 "CR7 1, "epteber 4, 19A1, ,e held that a
statute ,hich allo,s an e!ception to a constitutional right ?against ,arrantless
arrests@ should be strictly construed#
9 $n his scholarly Meorandu, Fr# Joa.uin :# Bernas, "#J# as amicus curiae in
/eople (s# /edro E# Malabago ?:#R# <o# 1161A1, 'eceber +, 1991@, (igorously
argues that R7 >169 has (alidly restored the death penalty ,hich ay no, be
iposed pro(ided that the prosecution pro(es, and the court is con(inced, that
?a@ the accused is guilty of a crie designated by R7 >169 as capital, ?b@ ,hose
coission is accopanied by aggra(ating circustances as defined by 7rts# 14
and 16 of the Re(ised /enal Code, ?c@ the accopanying aggra(ating
circustance ust be one ,hich can be characteri;ed by the court as a4ing
the crie =heinous=, and ?d@ that the e!ecution of the offender is deanded by
=copelling reasons= related to the offense# $n other ,ords, according to hi, it is
the courts I not Congress I that ha(e responsibility of deterining the
heinousness of a crie and the copelling reason for its iposition upon a
particular offender, depending on the facts of each case# $ cannot ho,e(er
subscribe to this (ie,# &he Constitution clearly identifies Congress as the
so(ereign entity ,hich is gi(en the onus of fulfilling these t,o constitutional
liitations#
10 /eople (s# MuQo;, supra, p# 1+1#
11 Chich becae effecti(e on 'eceber -1, 199-, per /eople (s# Burgos, +-4
"CR7 666, 619, July +9, 1994* /eople (s# :odoy, +60 "CR7 1>1, 'eceber 1,
1996* /eople (s# 7lbert, +61 "CR7 1-1, 'eceber 11, 1996#
1+ 7rt# 114 I &reason* 7rt# 1+- I Fualified /iracy* 7rt# +41 I /arricide*
7rt# +4A I Murder* 7rt# +66 I $nfanticide* 7rt# +1> I Gidnapping and "erious
$llegal 'etention* 7rt# +94 I Robbery ,ith (iolence against or intiidation of
persons* 7rt# -+0 I 'estructi(e 7rson* 7rt# --6 I Rape#
1- 7rt# ++127 on Fualified Bribery#
14 "ec# +, R7 >0A0 I /lunder* "ecs# -, 4, 6, >, A and 9 of 7rticle $$ of
R7 14+6 I /rohibited 'rugs* "ecs# 14, 1427 and 16 of 7rticle $$$ of said R7
14+6 I Carnapping#
16 7 preable is not an essential part of a statute# ?7gpalo, 0tatutor3
*onstruction, "econd 9dition 1990* Martin, 0tatutor3 *onstruction, "i!th 9dition,
19A4@# &he function of the preable is to supply reasons and e!planation and not
to confer po,er or deterine rights# 3ence it cannot be gi(en the effect of
enlarging the scope or effect of a statute# ?C# 'allas "ands, 0tatutes and
0tatutor3 *onstruction, Fourth 9dition, Eolue 07, R +0#0-@#
11 Under "ec# 11, R7 >169, it appears that death is the andatory penalty for
rape, regardless of the presence or absence of aggra(ating or itigating
circustances, =?,@hen by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a hoicide is
coitted,= or ,hen it is =coitted ,ith any of the attendant circustances
enuerated= in said section#
1> Chile in plunder and .ualified bribery are =ne,= capital offenses, R7 >169
nonetheless fails to 5ustify ,hy they are considered heinous# $n addition, the
specific copelling reasons for the prescribed penalty of death are note laid out
by the statute#
1A $n the case of rape, R7 >169 pro(ided certain attendant circustances ,hich
the prosecution ust pro(e before courts can ipose the e!tree penalty# Just
the sae ho,e(er, the la, did not e!plain ,hy said circustances ,ould a4e
the cries heinous# <either did it set forth the coplelling reasons therefor#
19 Record of the "enate, First Regular "ession, January 1A to March 11, 199-,
Eolue $$$, <o# 4A, January +6, 199-, p# 1++#
+0 $ Record of the Constitutional Coission, July 1A, 19A1, pp# >4+2>4-%
MR# "U7R9S &he :entlean ad(isedly used the ,ords 'heinous cries',
,hate(er is the pronunciation# Cill the :entlean gi(e e!aples of 'heinous
cries'N For e!aple, ,ould the head of an organi;ed syndicate in dope
distribution or dope suggling fall ,ithin the .ualification of a heinous offender
such as to preclude the application of the principle of abolition of death penaltyN
MR# M)<")' Des, Mada /resident# &hat is one of the possible cries that
,ould .ualify for a heinous crie# 7nother ,ould be organi;ed urder# $n other
,ords, yesterday there ,ere any arguents for and against, and they all had
erit# But in the conteporary society, ,e recogni;e the sacredness of huan
life and I $ thin4 it ,as 3onorable 0aurel ,ho said this yesterday I it is only
:od ,ho gi(es and ta4es life# 3o,e(er, the (oice of the people is also the (oice
of :od, and ,e cannot presue to ha(e the ,isdo of the ages# &herefore, it is
entirely possible in the future that circustances ay arise ,hich ,e should not
preclude today# Ce 4no, that this is (ery difficult .uestion# &he fact that the
arguents yesterday ,ere .uite ipassioned and eritorious erely tell us that
this is far fro a ,ell2settled issue# 7t least in y personal opinion, ,e ,ould li4e
the death penalty to be abolished# 3o,e(er, in the future ,e should allo, the
<ational 7ssebly in its ,isdo and as representati(es of the people, to still
ipose the death penalty for the coon good, in specific cases#
MR# "U7R9S# &han4 you#
$ ,ould li4e to pursue soe ore the :entlean's definition of 'heinous cries'#
Could the brutal urder of a rape (icti be considered as falling ,ithin that
classificationN
MR# M)<")'# Mada /resident, yes, particularly, if it is a person in authority#
3e ,ould, therefore, add as an aggra(ating circustance to the crie the abuse
of this position authority#
MR# "U7R9S# &han4 you#
+1 "oe e!aples of this ay be ta4en by Congress fro Richond (s# 0e,is,
601 U" 40, li4e =gratuitous (iolence= or =needless utilation= of the (icti#
++ /aragraph - P 4 of the preable reads%
C39R97", due to the alaring upsurge of such cries ,hich has
resulted not only in the loss of huan li(es and ,anton destruction of
property but has also affected the nation's efforts to,ards sustainable
econoic de(elopent and prosperity ,hile at the sae tie has
underined the people's faith in the :o(ernent and the latter's ability to
aintain peace and order in the country#
C39R97", the Congress, in the interest of 5ustice, public order and the rule of
la,, and the need to rationali;e and haroni;e the penal sanctions for heinous
cries, finds copelling reasons to ipose the death penalty for said cries*
+- Record of the 3ouse of Representati(es, First Regular "ession, 199+2199-,
Eolue $E, February 10, 199-, p# 1>4, ephasis supplied#
+4 Record of the 3ouse of Representati(es, First Regular "ession, 199+2199-,
Eol# $$$, <o(eber 10, 199+, p# 44A* ephasis supplied#
+6 Record of the "enate, First Regular "ession, January 1A to March 11, 199-,
Eolue $$$, <o# 60, January +>, 199-, pp# 1>121>>#
+1 0ee ="ponsorship Rear4s= of Rep# Manuel "anche;, Record of the 3ouse
of Representati(es, <o(eber 9, 199+, pp# 4024+#
+> Citness, for instance, this interesting e!change bet,een Coissioners
Joa.uin Bernas and <apoleon Raa ?$ Record of the Constitutional Coission,
p# 1>A@%
FR# B9R<7"# Chen soe e!perts appeared before us and ,e as4ed the if
there ,as e(idence to sho, that the death penalty had deterred the coission
of deadly cries, none of the ,as able to say that there ,as e(idence,
conclusi(e e(idence, for that#
MR# R7M7# $ a curious# Cho are e!perts then I social scientist or penologists
or ,hatN
FR# B9R<7"# /enologists#
MR# R7M7# )f course ,e are a,are that there is also another school of thought
here, another set of e!perts, ,ho ,ould s,ear that the death penalty discourages
cries or criinality# )f course# Coissioner Bernas 4no,s that ne(er in our
history has there been a higher incidence of crie# $ say that criinality ,as at its
;enith during the last decade#
FR# B9R<7"# Correct, in spite of the e!istence of the death penalty#
MR# R7M7# Des, but not necessarily in spite of the e!istence of the death
penalty# 7t any rate, does the sponsor thin4 that in reo(ing the death penalty, it
,ould not affect, one ,ay or another, the crie rate of the countryN
FR# B9R<7"# &he position ta4en by the a5ority of those ,ho (oted in fa(or of
this pro(ision is that eans other than the death penalty should be used for the
pre(ention of crie#
+A *f. Report to the United <ations Coittee on Crie /rosecution and
Control, United <ations "ocial 7ffairs 'i(ision, Crie /re(ention and Criinal
Justice Branch, Eienna, 19AA, p# 110#
+9 Forer Chief Justice 9nri.ue; M# Freehand, in his boo4, 7%e (ill of +i%ts,
?"econd 9dition, 19>+, p# 4#@ states% =7 regie of constitutionalis is thus
unthin4able ,ithout an assurance of the priacy of a bill of rights# /recisely a
constitution e!ists to assure that in the discharge of the go(ernental functions,
the dignity that is the birthright of e(ery huan being is duly safeguarded# # # #= $n
the conte!t of the role of a bill of right the (ast po,ers of go(ernent are clearly
to be e!ercise ,ithin the liits set by the constitution, particularly the bill of rights#
$n 9rita2Malate 3otel and Motel )perators (s# City Mayor of Manila, ?02+419-,
July -1, 191>@, it ,as held that the e!ercise of police po,er, insofar as it ay
affect the life, liberty or property of any person is sub5ect to 5udicial in.uiry# &he
guarantee in "ec# 1 of 7rticle $$$ of the Constitution ebraces life, liberty and
property# $n the ,ords of Justice Roberto Concepcion in /eople (s# 3ernande;,
?99 /hil 616, 6612+ K1961L@, =# # # indi(idual freedo is too basic, too
transcendental and (ital in a republican state, li4e ours, to be denied upon ere
general principle and abstract consideration of public safety# $ndeed, the
preser(ation of liberty is such a a5or preoccupation of our political syste that,
not satisfied ,ith guaranteeing its en5oyent in the (ery first paragraph of section
?1@ of the Bill of Rights, the fraers of our Constitution de(oted paragraphs ?-@,
?4@, ?6@, ?1@, ?>@, ?A@, ?11@, ?1+@, ?1-@, ?14@, ?16@, ?11@, ?1>@, ?1A@, and ?+1@ of said
section ?1@ to the protection of se(eral aspects of freedo# # # #= &hese
guarantees are preser(ed in the 19A> Constitution, according to Fr# Bernas#
-0 0ee, for instance /eople (s# "inatao, +49 "CR7 664, 6>1, )ctober +6, 1996,
and /eople (s# /idia, +49 "CR7 1A>, >0+2>0-, <o(eber 10, 1996#
-1 7rt# $$$, "ec# 1#
-+ 7rt# $$$, "ec# 11#
-- 7rt# $$, "ec# 1+ ?+@#
-4 7rt# $$, "ec# 1+#
-6 7rt# $$, "ecs# 16, 11 P 1>#
-1 For details, see 7nne! 7 of the Meorandu for the 7ccused27ppellant
dated "epteber +1, 1991 filed by the Free 0egal 7ssistance :roup in /eople
(s# Malabago, :#R# <o# 1161A1, 'eceber +, 1991#
-> &he F07:2subitted /rofile states that ha(e been sentenced to death by trial
courts since the effecti(ity of R7 >169# &he /hilippine "tar issue of 'eceber 9,
1991, page 1>, ho,e(er reports that, .uoting "en# 9rnesto 3errera, the total
nuber of death ro, inates has gone up to +1>, as of <o(eber, 1991, of
,ho, ore than one half ?1-9@ are rape con(icts# "oe a5or dailies
?/hilippine 'aily $n.uirer, /hilippine "tar, Manila "tandard@ in their February -,
199> issue up the death ro, figure to -00, as of the end of January 199>, ,ith
460 as the probable nuber at the end of 199>#
-A &he preable of the Constitution is theistic# $t declares the =so(ereign Filipino
people's iploration of the =aid of 7lighty :od=#
-9 Cetechis of the Catholic Churh, p# 61+, Cord and 0ife /ublications%
++11# /reser(ing the coon good of society re.uires rendering the
aggressor unable to inflict har# For this reason the traditional teaching
of the Church has ac4no,ledged as ,ell2founded the right and duty of
legitiate public authority to punish alefactors by eans of penalties
coensurate ,ith the gra(ity of the crie, not e!cluding, in cases of
e!tree gra(ity, the death penalty# For analogous reasons those holding
authority ha(e the right to repel by ared force aggressors against the
counity in their charge#
40 'vanelium /itae, ites no# 66 and 61 states%
66# &his should not cause surprise% to 4ill a huan being, in ,ho the
iage of :od is present, is a particularly serious sin# )nly :od is the
aster of lifeO Det fro the beginning, faced ,ith the any and often
tragic cases ,hich occur in the life of indi(iduals and society, Christian
reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of ,hat :od's
coandent prohibits and prescribes# &here are, in fact situations in
,hich (alues proposed by :od's 0a, see to in(ol(e a genuine
parado!# &his happens for e!aple in the case of legitiate defence, in
,hich the right to protect one's o,n life and the duty not to har
soeone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice# Certainly, the
intrinsic (alue of life and the duty to lo(e oneself no less than others are
the basis of a true right to self2defence# &he deanding coandent
of lo(e of neighbor, set forth in the )ld &estaent and confired by
Jesus, itself presupposes lo(e of oneself as the basis of coparison%
=Dou shall lo(e your neighbor as yourself= ?M4# 1+%-1@# Conse.uently, no
one can renounce the right to self2defence out of lac4 of lo(e for life or for
self# &his can only be done in (irtue of a heroic lo(e ,hich deepens and
transfigures the lo(e of self into a radical self2offering, according to the
spirit of the :ospel Beatitudes ?cf# Mt# 6%-A240@# &he sublie e!aple of
this self2offering is the 0ord Jesus hiself#
Moreo(er, =legitiate defence can be not only a right but a gra(e duty for
soeone responsible for another's life, the coon good of the faily or
of the "tate#= Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the
aggresor incapable of causing har soeties in(ol(es ta4ing his life# $n
this case, the fatal outcoe is attributable to the aggressor incapable
,hose action brought it about, e(en though he ay not be orally
responsible because of a lac4 of the use of reason#
61# &his is conte!t in ,hich to place the proble of the death penalty# )n
this atter there is a gro,ing tendency, both in the Church and in ci(il
society, to deand that it be applied in a (ery liited ,ay or e(en that it
be abolished copletely# &he proble ust be (ie,ed in the conte!t of a
syste of penal 5ustice e(en ore in line ,ith dignity and thus, in the
end, ,ith :od's plan for an and society# &he priary purpose of the
punishent ,hich society inflicts is =to redress the disorder caused by
the offence#= /ublic authority ust redress the (iolation of personal and
social rights by iposing on the offender to regain the e!ercise of his or
her freedo# $n this ,ay authority also fulfills the purpose of defending
public order and ensuring people's safety, ,hile at the sae tie offering
the offender an incenti(e and help to change his or her beha(ior and be
rehabilitated#
$t is clear that, for these purposes to be achie(ed, the nature and e!tent
of the punishent ust be carefully e(aluated and decided upon, and
ought not go to the e!tree of e!ecuting the offender e!cept in cases of
absolute necessity% in other ,ords, ,hen it ,ould not be possible other
,ise to defend society# &oday ho,e(er, as a result of steady
ipro(eents in the organi;ation of the penal syste, such cases are
(ery rare, if not partically non2e!istent#1#$p%i1.n&t
$n any e(ent, the principle, set forth in the ne, Catechis of the Catholic
Church reains (alid% =$f bloodless eans are sufficient to defend huan
li(es against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of
persons, public authority ust liit itself to such eans, because they
better correspond to the concrete conditions of the coon good and
are ore in confority to the dignity of the huan person#=