House Bill No. 4727,2 presently before the House of Representatives, and a number of Bills before the Senate, seek to reintroduce the death penalty in the Philippines for certain crimes. For the many reasons given in this study, House Bill 4727 and the similar Bills before the Senate should not be passed. This study is a joint collaboration between international law expert Dr Christopher Ward SC, Senior Counsel of the New South Wales Bar and Adjunct Professor of the Australian National University, and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. Overview of Proposed Bills to Re-impose Death Penalty House Bill No. 4727 proposes the re-introduction of the death penalty in the Philippines for drug-related offenses particularly importation of dangerous drugs, the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of dangerous drugs, maintenance of a drug “den, dive or resort,” manufacture of dangerous drugs, cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs, criminal liability of a public officer or employee for misappropriation, misapplication, or failure to account for the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, and criminal liability for planting evidence concerning illegal drugs. In the Senate, a variety of Bills are tabled. Proponents seek the reintroduction of the death penalty for crimes including treason, piracy, kidnapping, robbery with violence or intimidation, aggravated rape, arson, carjacking, drug trafficking, cultivation of narcotic plants, child trafficking, and the production of child pornography or child prostitution. Proponents of House Bill No. 4727 and the Senate Bills that reintroduction of the death penalty is permissible because while Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution abolished death penalty, it also includes a reference to the possibility of its reintroduction by Congress for “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.” Findings of the study show that this proposition is completely untenable. The reintroduction of the death penalty in any form in the Philippines will expose the Philippines to international ridicule and criticism as it breaches numerous rules of international law, including rules that it expressly and freely accepted in the free exercise of its sovereignty. Breach of international law by the Philippines in this context will undermine treaty commitments entered into by the Philippines. It will no longer be a respected member of the community of States.3 2 An Act Imposing the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9346, Entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”, And Further Amending Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the “Revised Penal Code”, And Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the th “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” House Bill No. 4724, House of Representatives, 17 Congress (2017). 3 Roy Stephen C. Canivel, Death penalty revival spooks British investors, INQUIRER.NET, Feb. 22, 2017, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/874012/death-penalty-revival-spooking-british-investors#ixzz4Ztxu0qAl (last accessed Mar. 03, 2017). The Philippine Daily Inquirer quoted the outgoing British Ambassador to the Philippines, speaking about the proposed revival of the death penalty, “I think there will be a severe blow. It basically says that the Philippines can walk away Page 2 of 23