EN BANC
G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999
LEO ECHEGARAY, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents.
Separate Opinions
PANGANIBAN, J., separate opinion;
I agree with the Court's Resolution that, without doubt, this Court has jurisdiction to issue the disputed Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on January 4, 1999. I will not repeat its well-reasoned disquisition. I write only to explain my vote in the context of the larger issue of the death penalty.
Since the solicitor general has demonstrated that Congress will not repeal or amend RA 7659 during its current session which ends on June 15, 1999 and that, in any event, the President will veto any such repeal or amendment, the TRO should by its own terms be deemed lifted now. However, my objections to the imposition of the death penalty transcend the TRO and permeate its juridical essence.
I maintain my view that RA 7659 (the Death Penalty Law) is unconstitutional insofar as some parts thereof prescribing the capital penalty fail to comply with the requirements of "heinousness" and "compelling reasons" prescribed by the Constitution of the Philippines. * This I have repeatedly stated in my Dissenting Opinion in various death cases decided by the Court, as well as during the Court's deliberation on this matter on January 4, 1999. For easy reference, I hereby attach a copy of my Dissent promulgated on February 7, 1997.
Consequently, I cannot now vote to lift TRO, because to do so would mean the upholding and enforcement of law (or the relevant portions thereof) which, I submit with all due respect, is unconstitutional and therefore legally nonexistent. I also reiterate that, in my humble opinion, RA 8177 (the Lethal Injection Law) is likewise unconstitutional since it merely prescribes the manner in which RA 7659 ( the Death Penalty Law) is to implemented.
Having said that, I stress, however, that I defer to the rule of law and will abide by the ruling of the Court that both RA 7659 and RA 8177 are constitutional and that death penalty should, by majority vote, be implemented by means of lethal injection.
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I vote to deny the solicitor general's Motion for Reconsideration.
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration
SEPARATE OPINION
Death Penalty Law Unconstitutional
In his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 1 dated August 22, 1996 filed by his newly-retained counsel, 2 the accused raises for the first time a very crucial ground for his defense: that Republic Act. No. 7659, the law reimposing the death penalty, is unconstitutional. In the Brief and (original Motion for Reconsideration filed by his previous counsel,3 this transcendental issue was nor brought up. Hence, it was not passed upon by this Court in its Decision affirming the trial court's sentence of death.4
The Constitution Abolished Death Penalty
Sec. 19, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (Emphasis supplied)
The second and third sentences of the above provision are new and had not been written in the 1935, 1973 or even in the 1986 "Freedom Constitution." They proscribe the imposition 5 of the death penalty "unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, Congress provides for it," and reduced "any death penalty already imposed" to reclusion perpetua. The provision has both a prospective aspect (it bars the future imposition of the penalty) and a retroactive one (it reduces imposed capital sentences to the lesser penalty of imprisonment).
This two-fold aspect is significant. It stresses that the Constitution did not merely suspend the imposition of the death penalty, but in fact completely abolished it from the statute books. The automatic commutation or reduction to reclusion perpetua of any death penalty extant as of the effectivity of the Constitution clearly recognizes that, while the conviction of an accused for a capital crime remains, death as a penalty ceased to exist in our penal laws and thus may longer be carried out. This is the clear intent of the framers of our Constitution. As Comm. Bernas ex-claimed,6 "(t)he majority voted for the constitutional abolition of the death penalty."
Citing this and other similar pronouncements of the distinguished Concom delegate, Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera emphasized, 7 "It is thus clear that when Fr. Bernas sponsored the provision regarding the non-imposition of the death penalty, what he had in mind was the total abolition and removal from the statute books of the death penalty. This became the intent of the frames of the Constitution when they approved the provision and made it a part of the Bill of Rights." With such abolition as a premise, restoration thereof becomes an exception to a constitutional mandate. Being an exception and thus in derogation of the Constitution, it must then be strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the people.8 In this light, RA 7659 enjoys no presumption of constitutionality.
The Constitution Strictly Limits
Congressional Prerogative to Prescribe Death
To me, it is very clear that the Constitution (1) effectively removed the death penalty from the then existing statutes but (2) authorized Congress to restore it at some future time to enable or empower courts to reimpose it on condition that it (Congress)9 finds "compelling reasons, involving heinous crimes." The language of the Constitution is emphatic (even if "awkward"10): the authority of Congress to "provide for it" is not absolute. Rather, it is strictly limited:
1. by "compelling reasons" that may arise after the Constitution became effective; and
2. to crimes which Congress should identify or define or characterize as "heinous."
The Constitution inexorably placed upon Congress the burden of determining the existence of "compelling reasons" and of defining what crimes are "heinous" before it could exercise its law-making prerogative to restore the death penalty. For clarity's sake, may I emphasize that Congress, by law; prescribes the death penalty on certain crimes; and courts, by their decisions, impose it on individual offenders found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing said crimes.
In the exercise of this fundamental mandate, Congress enacted RA 7659 11 to "provide for it" (the death penalty) (1) by amending certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code; 12 (2) by incorporating a new article therein; 13 and (3) by amending certain special laws. 14
But RA 7659 did not change the nature or the elements of the crimes stated in the Penal Code and in the special laws. It merely made the penalty more severe. Neither did its provisions (other than the preamble, which was cast in general terms) discuss or justify the reasons for the more sever sanction, either collectively for all the offenses or individually for each of them.
Generally, it merely reinstated the concept of and the method by which the death penalty had been imposed until February 2, 1987, when the Constitution took effect as follows: (1) a person is convicted of a capital offense; and (2) the commission of which was accompanied by aggravating circumstances not outweighed by mitigating circumstances.
The basic question then is: In enacting RA 7659, did Congress exceed the limited authority granted it by the Constitution? More legally put: It reviving the death penalty, did Congress act with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of the very limited power or jurisdiction conferred on it by Art. III, Sec. 19? The answer, I respectfully submit, is YES.
Heinous Crimes
To repeat, while he Constitution limited the power of Congress to prescribe the death penalty ONLY to "heinous" crimes, it did not define or characterize the meaning of "heinous". Neither did Congress. As already stated, RA 7659 itself merely selected some existing crimes for which it prescribed death as an applicable penalty. It did not give a standard or a characterization by which courts may be able to appreciate the heinousness of a crime. I concede that Congress was only too well aware of its constitutionally limited power. In deference thereto, it included a paragraph in the preambular or "whereas" clauses of RA 7659, as follows:
"WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.
In my humble view, however, the foregoing clause is clearly an insufficient definition or characterization of what a heinous crime is. It simply and gratuitously declared certain crimes to be "heinous" without adequately justifying its bases therefor. It supplies no useful, workable, clear and unambiguous standard by which the presence of heinousness can be determined. Calling the crimes "grievous, odious and hateful" is not a substitute for an objective juridical definition. Neither is the description "inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity." Describing blood as blue does not detract from its being crimson in fact; and renaming gumamela as rose will not arm it with thorns.
Besides, a preamble is really not an integral part of a law. It is merely an introduction to show its intent or purposes. It cannot be the origin of rights and obligations. Where the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the preamble can neither expand nor restrict its operation, much less prevail over its text. 15 In this case, it cannot be the authoritative source to show compliance with the Constitution.
As already alluded to, RA 7659 merely amended certain laws to prescribe death as the maximum imposable penalty once the court appreciates the presence or absence of aggravating circumstances. 16
In other words, it just reinstated capital punishment for crimes which were already punishable with death prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. With the possible exception of plunder and qualified bribery,17 no new crimes were introduced by RA 7659. The offenses punished by death under said law were already to punishable by the Revised Penal Code 18 and by special laws.
During the debate on Senate Bill No. 891 which later became RA 7659, Sen. Jose Lina, in answer to a question of Sen. Ernesto Maceda, wryly said: 19
So we did not go that far from the Revised Penal Code, Mr. President, and from existing special laws which, before abolition of the death penalty, had already death as the maximum penalty.
By merely reimposing capital punishment on the very same crimes which were already penalized with death prior to the charter's effectivity, Congress I submit has not fulfilled its specific and positive constitutional duty. If the Constitutional Commission intended merely to allow Congress to prescribe death for these very same crimes, it would not have written Sec. 19 of Article III into the fundamental law. But the stubborn fact is it did. Verily, the intention to 1) delete the death penalty from our criminal laws and 2) make its restoration possible only under and subject to stringent conditions is evident not only from the language of the Constitution but also from the charter debates on this matter.
The critical phrase "unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes" was an amendment introduced by Comm. Christian Monsod. In explaining what possible crimes could qualify as heinous, he and Comm. Jose Suarez agreed on "organized murder" or "brutal murder of a rape victim". 20 Note that the honorable commissioners did not just say "murder" but organized murder; not just rape but brutal murder of a rape victim. While the debates were admittedly rather scanty, I believe that the available information shows that, when deliberating on "heinousness", the Constitutional Commission did not have in mind the offenses already existing and already penalized with death. I also believe that the heinousness clause requires that:
1. the crimes should be entirely new offenses, the elements of which have an inherent quality, degree or level of perversity, depravity or viciousness unheard of until then; or
2. even existing crimes, provided some new element or essential ingredient like "organized" or "brutal" is added to show their utter perversity, odiousness or malevolence; or
3. the means or method by which the crime, whether new or old, is carried out evinces a degree or magnitude of extreme violence, evil, cruelty, atrocity, viciousness as to demonstrate its heinousness. 21
For this purpose, Congress could enact an entirely new set of circumstances to qualify the crime as "heinous", in the same manner that the presence of treachery in a homicide aggravates the crime to murder for which a heavier penalty is prescribed.
Compelling Reasons
Quite apart from requiring the attendant element of heinousness, the Constitution also directs Congress to determine "compelling reasons" for the revival of the capital penalty. It is true that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the preamble of RA 7659 22 made some attempt at meeting this requirement. But such effort was at best feeble and inconsequential. It should be remembered that every word or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should never be ignored, cavalierly-treated or brushed aside. Thus, I believe that the compelling reasons and the characterization of heinousness cannot be done wholesale but must shown for each and every crime, individually and separately.
The words "compelling reasons" were included in the Charter because, in the words of Comm. Monsod, "in the future, circumstances may arise which we should not preclude today . . . and that the conditions and the situation (during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission) might change for very specific reasons" requiring the return of the constitutionally-abhorred penalty.
In his sponsorship of House Bill No. 62 which later evolved into RA 7659, Congressman Pablo Garcia, in answer to questions raised by Representative Edcel Lagman tried to explain these compelling reasons: 23
MR. LAGMAN: So what are the compelling reasons now, Mr. Speaker? . . .
MR. GARCIA (P.). The worsening peace and order condition in the country, Mr. Speaker. That is one.
MR. LAGMAN. So the compelling reason which the distinguished sponsor would like to justify or serve as an anchor for the justification of the reimposition of the death penalty is the alleged worsening peace and order situation. The Gentleman claims that is one the compelling reasons. But before we dissent this particular "compelling reason," may we know what are the other compelling reasons, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GARCIA (P.) Justice, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LAGMAN. Justice.
MR. GARCIA (P.). Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LAGMAN. Justice is a compelling reason, Mr. Speaker? Could the Gentleman kindly elaborate on that answer? Why is justice a compelling reason as if justice was not obtained at the time the Constitution abolished the death penalty? Any compelling reason should be a supervening circumstances after 1987.
MR. GARCIA (P.). Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly said again and again that if one lives in an organized society governed by law, justice demands that crime be punished and that the penalty imposed be commensurate with the offense committed.
MR. LAGMAN. The Gentleman would agree with me that when the Constitution speaks of the compelling reasons to justify the reimposition of death penalty, it refers to reasons which would supervene or come after the approval of the 1987 Constitution. Is he submitting that justice, in his own concept of a commensurate penalty for the offense committed, was not obtained in 1987 when the Constitution abolished the death penalty and the people ratified it?
MR. GARCIA (P.). That is precisely why we are saying that now, under present conditions, because of the seriousness of the offenses being committed at this time, justice demands that the appropriate penalty must be meted out for those who have committed heinous crimes.
x x x x x x x x x
In short, Congressman Garcia invoked the preambular justifications of "worsening peace and order" and "justice". With all due respect I submit that these grounds are not "compelling" enough to justify the revival of state-decreed deaths. In fact, I dare say that these "reasons" were even non-existent. Statistics from the Philippine National Police show that the crime volume and crime rate particularly on those legislated capital offenses did not worsen but in fact declined between 1987, the date when the Constitution took effect, and 1993, the year when RA 7659 was enacted. Witness the following debate 24 also between Representatives Garcia and Lagman:
MR. LAGMAN. Very good, Mr. Speaker.
Now, can we go to 1987. Could the Gentleman from Cebu inform us the volume of the crime of murder in 1987?
MR. GARCIA (P.). The volume of the crime of murder in 1987 is 12,305.
MR. LAGMAN. So, the corresponding crime rate was 21 percent.
MR. GARCIA (P.). Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LAGMAN. That was in 1987, Mr. Speaker, could the distinguished chairman inform us the volume of murder in 1988?
MR. GARCIA (P.). It was 10,521, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LAGMAN. Or it was a reduction from 12,305 in 1987 to 10,521 in 1988. Correspondingly, the crime rate in the very year after the abolition of the death penalty was reduced from 21 percent to 18 percent. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GARCIA (P.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Those are the statistics supplied by the PC.
MR. LAGMAN. Now can we go again to 1987 when the Constitution abolished the death penalty? May we know from the distinguished Gentleman the volume of robbery in 1987?
MR. GARCIA (P.). Will the Gentleman state the figure? I will confirm it.
MR. LAGMAN. No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the question.
MR. GARCIA (P.). It was 22,942, Mr. Speaker, and the crime rate was 40 percent.
MR. LAGMAN. This was the year immediately after the abolition of the death penalty. Could the Gentleman tell us the volume of robbery cases in 1988?
MR. GARCIA (P.). It was 16,926, Mr. Speaker.
MR. LAGMAN. Obviously, the Gentleman would agree with me. Mr. Speaker that the volume of robbery cases declined from 22,942 in 1987 or crime rate of 40 percent to 16,926 or a crime rate of 29 percent. Would the Gentleman confirm that, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GARCIA (P.). This is what the statistics say, I understand we are reading now from the same document.
MR. LAGMAN. Now, going to homicide, the volume 1987 was 12,870 or a crime rate of 22 percent. The volume in 1988 was 11,132 or a crime rate of 19 percent. Would the Gentleman confirm that, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GARCIA (P.). As I Said, Mr. Speaker, we are reading from the same document and I would not want to say that the Gentleman is misreading the document that I have here.
MR. LAGMAN. But would the Gentleman confirm that?
MR. GARCIA (P.). The document speaks for itself.
When interpellated by Sen. Arturo Tolentino, Sen. Jose Lina gave some figures on the number of persons arrested in regard to drug-related offenses in the year 1987 as compared to 1991: 25
Let me cite this concrete statistics by the Dangerous Drug Board.
In 1987 — this was the year when the death penalty was abolished — the persons arrested in drug-related cases were 3,062, and the figure dropped to 2,686 in 1988.
By the way, I will furnish my Colleagues with a photocopy of this report.
From 3,062 in 1987, it dropped to 2,686. Again, it increased a bit to 2,862 in 1989. It still decreased to 2,202 in 1990, and it increased again to 2,862 in 1991.
But in 1987, when the death penalty was abolished, as far as the drug-related cases are concerned, the figure continued a downward trend, and there was no death penalty in this time from, 1988 to 1991.
In a further attempt to show compelling reasons, the proponents of the death penalty argue that its reimposition "would pose as an effective deterrent against heinous crimes." 26 However no statistical data, no sufficient proof, empirical or otherwise, have been submitted to show with any conclusiveness the relationship between the prescription of the death penalty for certain offenses and the commission or non-commission thereof. This is a theory that can be debated on and on, 27 in the same manner that another proposition — that the real deterrent to crime is the certainty of immediate arrest, prosecution and conviction of the culprit without unnecessary risk, expense and inconvenience to the victim, his heirs or his witnesses — can be argued indefinitely. 28 This debate can last till the academics grow weary of the spoken word, but it would not lessen the constitutionally-imposed burden of Congress to act within the "heinousness" and "compelling reasons" limits of its death-prescribing power.
Other Constitutional Rights
Militate Against RA 7659
It should be emphasized that the constitutional ban against the death penalty is included in our Bill of Rights. As such, it should — like any other guarantee in favor of the accused — be zealously protected, 29 and any exception thereto meticulously screened. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the people, particularly where the right pertains to persons accused of crimes. 30 Here the issue is not just crimes — but capital crimes!
So too, all our previous Constitutions, including the first one ordained at Malolos, guarantee that "(n)o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." 31 This primary right of the people to enjoy life — life at its fullest, life in dignity and honor — is not only reiterated by the 1987 Charter but is in fact fortified by its other pro-life and pro-human rights provisions. Hence, the Constitution values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights, 32 expressly prohibits any form of torture 33 which is arguably a lesser penalty than death, emphasizes the individual right to life by giving protection to the life of the mother and the unborn from the moment of conception 34 and establishes the people's rights to health, a balanced ecology and education. 35
This Constitutional explosion of concern for man more than property for people more than the state, and for life more than mere existence augurs well for the strict application of the constitutional limits against the revival of death penalty as the final and irreversible exaction of society against its perceived enemies.
Indeed, volumes have been written about individual rights to free speech. assembly and even religion. But the most basic and most important of these rights is the right to life. Without life, the other rights cease in their enjoyment, utility and expression.
This opinion would not be complete without a word on the wrenching fact that the death penalty militates against the poor, the powerless and the marginalized. The "Profile of 165 Death Row Convicts" submitted by the Free Legal Assistance Group 36 highlights this sad fact:
1. Since the reimposition of the death penalty, 186 persons 37 have been sentenced to death. At the end of 1994, there were 24 death penalty convicts, at the end of 1995, the number rose to 90; an average of seven (7) convicts per month; double the monthly average of capital sentences imposed the prior year. From January to June 1996, the number of death penalty convicts reached 72, an average of 12 convicts per month, almost double the monthly average of capital sentences imposed in 1995.
2. Of the 165 convicts polled, approximately twenty one percent (21%) earn between P200 to P2,900 monthly; while approximately twenty seven percent (27%) earn between P3,000 to P3,999 monthly. Those earning above P4,000 monthly are exceedingly few: seven percent (7%) earn between P4,000 to P4,999, four percent (4%) earn between P5,000 to P5,999, seven percent (7%) earn between P6,000 to P6,999, those earning between P7,000 to P15,000 comprise only four percent (4%), those earning P15,000 and above only one percent (1%). Approximately thirteen percent (13%) earn nothing at all, while approximately two percent (2%) earn subsistence wages with another five percent (5%) earning variable income. Approximately nine percent (9%) do not know how much they earn in a month.
3. Thus, approximately two-thirds of the convicts, about 112 of them, earn below the government-mandated minimum monthly wage of P4,290; ten (10) of these earn below the official poverty line set by government. Twenty six (26) earn between P4,500.00 and P11,0000.00 monthly, indicating they belong to the middle class; only one (1) earns P30.000.00 monthly. Nine (9) convicts earn variable income or earn on a percentage or allowance basis; fifteen (15) convicts do not know or are unsure of their monthly income. Twenty two (22) convicts earn nothing at all.
4. In terms of occupation, approximately twenty one percent (21%) are agricultural workers or workers in animal husbandry; of these thirty (30), or almost one-fifth thereof, are farmers. Thirty five percent (35%) are in the transport and construction industry, with thirty one (31) construction workers or workers in allied fields (carpentry, painting, welding) while twenty seven (27) are transport workers (delivery, dispatcher, mechanic, tire man, truck helper) with sixteen (16) of them drivers. Eighteen percent (18%) are in clerical, sales and service industries, with fourteen (14) sales workers (engaged in buy and sell or fish, cigarette or rice vendors), twelve (12) service workers (butchers, beauticians, security guards, shoemakers, tour guides, computer programmers, radio technicians) and four (4) clerks (janitors, MERALCO employee and clerk) About four percent (4%) are government workers, with six (6) persons belonging to the armed services (AFP, PNP and even CAFGU). Professionals, administrative employee and executives comprise only three percent (3%), nine percent (9%) are unemployed.
5. None of the DRC's use English as their medium of communication. About forty four percent (44%), or slightly less than half speak and understand Tagalog; twenty six percent (26%), or about one-fourth, speak and understand Cebuano. The rest speak and understand Bicolano, Ilocano, Ilonggo, Kapampangan, Pangasinense and Waray. One (1) convict is a foreign national and speaks and understand Niponggo.
6. Approximately twelve percent (12%) graduated from college, about forty seven percent (47%) finished varying levels of elementary education with twenty seven (27) graduating from elementary. About thirty five percent (35%), fifty eight (58) convicts, finished varying levels of high school, with more than half of them graduating from high school. Two (2) convicts finished vocational education; nine (9) convicts did not study at all.
The foregoing profile based on age, language and socio-economic situations sufficiently demonstrates that RA 7659 has militated against the poor and the powerless in society — those who cannot afford the legal services necessary in capital crimes, where extensive preparation, investigation, research and presentation are required. The best example to shoe the sad plight of the underprivileged is this very case where the crucial issue of constitutionality was woefully omitted in the proceedings in the trial court and even before this Court until the Free legal Assistance Group belatedly brought it up in the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
To the poor and unlettered, it is bad enough that the law is complex and written in a strange, incomprehensible language. Worse still, judicial proceedings are themselves complicated, intimidating and damning. The net effect of having a death penalty that is imposed more often than not upon the impecunious is to engender in the minds of the latter, a sense — unfounded, to be sure, but unhealthy nevertheless — of the unequal balance of the scales of justice.
Most assuredly, it may be contended that the foregoing arguments, and in particular, the statistics above-cited, are in a very real sense prone to be misleading, and that regardless of the socio-economic profile of the DRCs, the law reviving capital punishment does not in any way single out or discriminate against the poor, the unlettered or the underprivileged. To put it in another way, as far as the disadvantaged are concerned, the law would still be complex and written in a strange and incomprehensible language, and judicial proceedings complicated and intimidating, whether the ultimate penalty involved be life (sentence) or death. Another aspect of the whole controversy is that, whatever the penalties set by law, it seems to me that there will always be certain class or classes of people in our society who, by reason of their poverty, lack of educational attainment and employment opportunities, are consequently confined to living, working and subsisting in less-than-ideal environments, amidst less-than-genteel neighbors similarly situated as themselves, and are therefore inherently more prone to be involved (as victims or perpetrators) in vices, violence and crime. So from that perspective, the law reviving the death penalty neither improves nor worsens their lot substantially. Or, to be more precise, such law may even be said to help improve their situation (at least in theory) by posing a much stronger deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes.
However, such a viewpoint simply ignores the very basic differences that exist in the situations of the poor and the non-poor. Precisely because the underprivileged are what they are, they require and deserve a greater degree of protection and assistance from our laws and Constitution, and from the courts and the State, so that in spite of themselves, they can be empowered to rise above themselves and their situation. The basic postulates for such a position are, I think, simply that everyone ultimately wants to better himself and that we cannot better ourselves individually to any significant degree if we are unable to advance as an entire people and nation. All the pro-poor provisions of the Constitution point in this direction. Yet we are faced with this law that effectively inflicts the ultimate punishment on none other than the poor and disadvantaged in the greater majority of cases, and which penalty, being so obviously final and so irreversibly permanent, erases all hope of reform, of change for the better. This law, I submit, has no place in our legal, judicial and constitutional firmament.
Epilogue
In sum, I respectfully submit that:
(1) The 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty from our statute books. It did not merely suspend or prohibit its imposition.
(2) The Charter effectively granted a new right: the constitution right against the death penalty, which is really a species of the right to life.
(3) Any law reviving the capital penalty must be strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused because such a stature denigrates the Constitution, impinges on a basic right and tends to deny equal justice to the underprivileged.
(4) Every word or phrase in the Constitution is sacred and should never be ignored, cavalierly-treated or brushed aside.
(5) Congressional power death is severely limited by two concurrent requirements:
a) First, Congress must provide a set of attendant circumstances which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, apart from the elements of the crime and itself. Congress must explain why and how these circumstances define or characterize the crime as "heinous".
b) Second, Congress has also the duty of laying out clear and specific reasons which arose after the effectivity of the Constitution compelling the enactment of the law. It bears repeating that these requirements are inseparable. They must both be present in view of the specific constitutional mandate — "for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes." The compelling reason must flow from the heinous nature of the offense.
(6) In every law reviving the capital penalty, the heinousness and compelling reasons must be set out for each and every crime, and not just for all crimes generally and collectively.
"Thou shall not kill" is fundamental commandment to all Christians, as well as to the rest of the "sovereign Filipino people" who believe in Almighty God. 38 While the Catholic Church, to which the vast majority of our people belong, acknowledges the power of public authorities to prescribe the death penalty, it advisedly limits such prerogative only to "cases of extreme
gravity." 39 To quote Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (A Hymn to Life), 40 "punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society . . . (which is) very rare, if not practically non-existent."
Although not absolutely banning it, both the Constitution and the Church indubitably abhor the death penalty. Both are pro-people and pro-life. Both clearly recognize the primacy of human life over and above even the state which man created precisely to protect, cherish and defend him. The Constitution reluctantly allows capital punishment only for "compelling reasons involving heinous crimes" just as the Church grudgingly permits it only reasons of "absolute necessity" involving crimes of "extreme gravity", which are very rare and practically non-existent.
In the face of these evident truisms, I ask: Has the Congress, in enacting RA 7659, amply discharged its constitutional burden of proving the existence of "compelling reasons" to prescribe death against well-defined "heinous" crimes?
I respectfully submit it has not.
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, I respectfully vote to grant partially the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and to modify the dispositive portion of the decision of the trial court by deleting the words "DEATH", as provided for under RA 7659," and substitute therefore reclusion perpetua.
I further vote to declare RA 7659 unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death for the crimes mentioned in its text.
Footnotes
* I have further explained my unflinching position on this matter in my recent book Battles in the Supreme Court, particularly on page 58 to 84.
1 It is called "Supplemental" because there was a (main) Motion for Reconsideration filed by the previous counsel of the accused, which this Court already denied.
2 The Anti Death Penalty Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group — Pablito V. Sanidad, Jose Manuel I. Diokno, Arno V. Sanidad, Efren Moncupa, Eduardo R. Abaya and Ma. Victoria I. Diokno — filed its Notice of Appearance dated August 22, 1996 only on August 23, 1996, after the Per Curiam Decision of this Court was promulgated on June 25, 1996.
3 Atty. Julian R. Vitug, Jr.
4 The bulk of jurisprudence precludes raising an issue for the first time only on appeal. See, for instance, Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 303, October 13, 1995; Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 715, July 11, 1995; Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 738, July 21, 1995. However, the Court resolved to tackle the question of constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 in this case, anticipating that the same question would be raised anyway in many other subsequent instances. The Court resolved to determine and dispose of the issue once and for all, at the first opportunity. To let the issue pass unresolved just because it was raised after the promulgation of the decision affirming conviction may result in grave injustice.
5 In People vs. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107, February 9, 1989, the Court, prior to the enactment and effectivity of RA 7659, ruled by a vote of 9-6 (J. Cruz, ponente, C.J. Fernan, JJ., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, concurring) that the death penalty was not abolished but only prohibited from imposed. But see also the persuasive Dissenting Opinion of Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera (joined by JJ. Narvasa, Paras, Sarmiento, Cortes and Regalado) who contended that the Constitution totally abolished the death penalty and removed it form the statute books. People vs. Muñoz reversed the earlier "abolition" doctrine uniformly held in People vs. Gavarra, 155 SCRA 327, October 30, 1987, (per C.J. Yap); People vs. Masangkay, 155 SCRA 113, October 27, 1987, (per J. Melencio-Herrera) and People vs. Atencio, 156 SCRA 242, December 10, 1987 (per C.J. Narvasa). It is time that these cases are revisited by this Court.
6 This quote is taken from I Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 676 (July 17, 1986) as follows:
Fr. Bernas:
x x x x x x x x x
My recollection on this is that there was a division in the Committee not on whether the death penalty should be abolished or not, but rather on whether the abolition should be done by the Constitution — in which case it cannot be restored by the legislature — or left to the legislature. The majority voted for the constitutional abolition of the death penalty. And the reason is that capital punishment is inhuman for the convict and his family who are traumatized by the waiting, even if it is never carried out. There is no evidence that death penalty deterred deadly criminals, hence, life should not be destroyed just in the hope that other lives might be saved. Assuming mastery over the life of another man is just too presumptuous for any man. The fact that the death penalty as an institution has been there from time immemorial should not deter us from reviewing it. Human life is more valuable than an institution intended precisely to serve human life. So basically, this is the summary of the reason which were presented in support of the constitutional abolition of the death penalty (emphasis supplied)
7 Dissenting Opinion in People vs. Muñoz, supra, p. 129.
8 Thus in People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, September 4, 1986, we held that a statute which allows an exception to a constitutional right (against warrantless arrests) should be strictly construed.
9 In his scholarly Memorandum, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. as amicus curiae in People vs. Pedro V. Malabago (G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996), vigorously argues that RA 7659 has validly restored the death penalty which may now be imposed provided that the prosecution proves, and the court is convinced, that (a) the accused is guilty of a crime designated by RA 7659 as capital, (b) whose commission is accompanied by aggravating circumstances as defined by Arts. 14 and 15 of the Revised Penal Code, (c) the accompanying aggravating circumstance must be one which can be characterized by the court as making the crime "heinous", and (d) that the execution of the offender is demanded by "compelling reasons" related to the offense. In other words, according to him, it is the courts — not Congress — that have responsibility of determining the heinousness of a crime and the compelling reason for its imposition upon a particular offender, depending on the facts of each case. I cannot however subscribe to this view. The Constitution clearly identifies Congress as the sovereign entity which is given the onus of fulfilling these two constitutional limitations.
10 People vs. Muñoz, supra, p. 121.
11 Which became effective on December 31, 1993, per People vs. Burgos, 234 SCRA 555, 569, July 29, 1994; People vs. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676, December 6, 1995; People vs. Albert, 251 SCRA 136, December 11, 1995.
12 Art. 114 — Treason; Art. 123 — Qualified Piracy; Art. 246 — Parricide;
Art. 248 — Murder; Art. 255 — Infanticide; Art. 267 — Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; Art. 294 — Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Art. 320 — Destructive Arson; Art. 335 — Rape.
13 Art. 221-A on Qualified Bribery.
14 Sec. 2, RA 7080 — Plunder; Secs. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II of RA 6425 — Prohibited Drugs; Secs. 14, 14-A and 15 of Article III of said RA 6425 — Carnapping.
15 A preamble is not an essential part of a statute. (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Second Edition 1990; Martin, Statutory Construction, Sixth Edition, 1984). The function of the preamble is to supply reasons and explanation and not to confer power or determine rights. Hence it cannot be given the effect of enlarging the scope or effect of a statute. (C. Dallas Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction, Fourth Edition, Volume LA, § 20.03).
16 Under Sec. 11, RA 7659, it appears that death is the mandatory penalty for rape, regardless of the presence or absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, "(w)hen by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed," or when it is "committed with any of the attendant circumstances enumerated" in said section.
17 While in plunder and qualified bribery are "new" capital offenses, RA 7659 nonetheless fails to justify why they are considered heinous. In addition, the specific compelling reasons for the prescribed penalty of death are note laid out by the statute.
18 In the case of rape, RA 7659 provided certain attendant circumstances which the prosecution must prove before courts can impose the extreme penalty. Just the same however, the law did not explain why said circumstances would make the crimes heinous. Neither did it set forth the complelling reasons therefor.
19 Record of the Senate, First Regular Session, January 18 to March 11, 1993, Volume III, No. 48, January 25, 1993, p. 122.ℒαwρhi৷
20 I Record of the Constitutional Commission, July 18, 1986, pp. 742-743:
MR. SUAREZ The Gentleman advisedly used the words 'heinous crimes', whatever is the pronunciation. Will the Gentleman give examples of 'heinous crimes'? For example, would the head of an organized syndicate in dope distribution or dope smuggling fall within the qualification of a heinous offender such as to preclude the application of the principle of abolition of death penalty?
MR. MONSOD Yes, Madam President. That is one of the possible crimes that would qualify for a heinous crime. Another would be organized murder. In other words, yesterday there were many arguments for and against, and they all had merit. But in the contemporary society, we recognize the sacredness of human life and — I think it was Honorable Laurel who said this yesterday — it is only God who gives and takes life. However, the voice of the people is also the voice of God, and we cannot presume to have the wisdom of the ages. Therefore, it is entirely possible in the future that circumstances may arise which we should not preclude today. We know that this is very difficult question. The fact that the arguments yesterday were quite impassioned and meritorious merely tell us that this is far from a well-settled issue. At least in my personal opinion, we would like the death penalty to be abolished. However, in the future we should allow the National Assembly in its wisdom and as representatives of the people, to still impose the death penalty for the common good, in specific cases.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
I would like to pursue some more the Gentleman's definition of 'heinous crimes'. Would the brutal murder of a rape victim be considered as falling within that classification?
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, yes, particularly, if it is a person in authority. He would, therefore, add as an aggravating circumstance to the crime the abuse of this position authority.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
21 Some examples of this may be taken by Congress from Richmond vs. Lewis, 506 US 40, like "gratuitous violence" or "needless mutilation" of the victim.
22 Paragraph 3 & 4 of the preamble reads:
WHEREAS, due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but has also affected the nation's efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in the country.
WHEREAS, the Congress, in the interest of justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;
23 Record of the House of Representatives, First Regular Session, 1992-1993, Volume IV, February 10, 1993, p. 674, emphasis supplied.
24 Record of the House of Representatives, First Regular Session, 1992-1993, Vol. III, November 10, 1992, p. 448; emphasis supplied.
25 Record of the Senate, First Regular Session, January 18 to March 11, 1993, Volume III, No. 50, January 27, 1993, pp. 176-177.
26 See "Sponsorship Remarks" of Rep. Manuel Sanchez, Record of the House of Representatives, November 9, 1992, pp. 40-42.
27 Witness, for instance, this interesting exchange between Commissioners Joaquin Bernas and Napoleon Rama (I Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 678):
FR. BERNAS. When some experts appeared before us and we asked them if there was evidence to show that the death penalty had deterred the commission of deadly crimes, none of them was able to say that there was evidence, conclusive evidence, for that.
MR. RAMA. I am curious. Who are experts then — social scientist or penologists or what?
FR. BERNAS. Penologists.
MR. RAMA. Of course we are aware that there is also another school of thought here, another set of experts, who would swear that the death penalty discourages crimes or criminality. Of course. Commissioner Bernas knows that never in our history has there been a higher incidence of crime. I say that criminality was at its zenith during the last decade.
FR. BERNAS. Correct, in spite of the existence of the death penalty.
MR. RAMA. Yes, but not necessarily in spite of the existence of the death penalty. At any rate, does the sponsor think that in removing the death penalty, it would not affect, one way or another, the crime rate of the country?
FR. BERNAS. The position taken by the majority of those who voted in favor of this provision is that means other than the death penalty should be used for the prevention of crime.
28 Cf. Report to the United Nations Committee on Crime Prosecution and Control, United Nations Social Affairs Division, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Vienna, 1988, p. 110.
29 Former Chief Justice Enriquez M. Freehand, in his book, The Bill of Rights, (Second Edition, 1972, p. 4.) states: "A regime of constitutionalism is thus unthinkable without an assurance of the primacy of a bill of rights. Precisely a constitution exists to assure that in the discharge of the governmental functions, the dignity that is the birthright of every human being is duly safeguarded. . . ." In the context of the role of a bill of right the vast powers of government are clearly to be exercise within the limits set by the constitution, particularly the bill of rights. In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators vs. City Mayor of Manila, (L-24693, July 31, 1967), it was held that the exercise of police power, insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any person is subject to judicial inquiry. The guarantee in Sec. 1 of Article III of the Constitution embraces life, liberty and property. In the words of Justice Roberto Concepcion in People vs. Hernandez, (99 Phil 515, 551-2 [1956]), ". . . individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state, like ours, to be denied upon mere general principle and abstract consideration of public safety. Indeed, the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our political system that, not satisfied with guaranteeing its enjoyment in the very first paragraph of section (1) of the Bill of Rights, the framers of our Constitution devoted paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (21) of said section (1) to the protection of several aspects of freedom. . . ." These guarantees are preserved in the 1987 Constitution, according to Fr. Bernas.
30 See, for instance People vs. Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554, 571, October 25, 1995, and People vs. Pidia, 249 SCRA 687, 702-703, November 10, 1995.
31 Art. III, Sec. 1.
32 Art. III, Sec. 11.
33 Art. II, Sec. 12 (2).
34 Art. II, Sec. 12.
35 Art. II, Secs. 15, 16 & 17.
36 For details, see Annex A of the Memorandum for the Accused-Appellant dated September 26, 1996 filed by the Free Legal Assistance Group in People vs. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996.
37 The FLAG-submitted Profile states that have been sentenced to death by trial courts since the effectivity of RA 7659. The Philippine Star issue of December 9, 1996, page 17, however reports that, quoting Sen. Ernesto Herrera, the total number of death row inmates has gone up to 267, as of November, 1996, of whom, more than one half (139) are rape convicts. Some major dailies (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Manila Standard) in their February 3, 1997 issue up the death row figure to 300, as of the end of January 1997, with 450 as the probable number at the end of 1997.
38 The preamble of the Constitution is theistic. It declares the "sovereign Filipino people's imploration of the "aid of Almighty God".
39 Cetechism of the Catholic Churh, p. 512, Word and Life Publications:
2266. Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.
40 Evangelium Vitae, items no. 55 and 56 states:
55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are, in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbor, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mk. 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt. 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State." Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggresor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor incapable whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
56. This is context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice even more in line with dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence." Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible other wise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not partically non-existent.1âwphi1.nêt
In any event, the principle, set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
