The framers of the 1987 provided various provision was included. SJ, one of the Bernas, commissioners, imposition of reasons why Fr. penalty in People his v. definition dissenting Alicando. etymological constitutional that Kapunan's heinous this Joaquin explained death Santiago Constitution root of opinion He traced of the in the word “heinous” to the Early Spartans’ word, the haineus, inflicts meaning, hateful and traumatic pain on the convict and the abominable, which, in turn, was from family and stated that there was a lack the Greek prefix haton, denoting acts of “so convincing penalty crimes. evidence deters The the death commission Philippines favored that penal Supreme of system restorative hatefully or shockingly evil". The Court also agreed with this definition. justice. The Court in People v Echegaray also The Court in People v. discussed the meaning “heinous.” The Court ruled Echegaray of the first heinousness term pointed that the and elements of compulsion are inseparable and are interspersed with to Republic Act No. 7659. The preamble to each that Act characterizes heinous crimes “alarming upsurge of such crimes” as as stated and acts which hateful reason are “grievous, offenses of their and inherent wickedness, viciousness, perversity are odious said and Court also considered law reasons to be the involving Neither vyardstick to is it heinous necessary crimes. to show statistical data on higher incidences of society.” crimes The is immaterial determine the existence of compelling standards ordered an the same for it was never intended by repugnant and in R.AA. No. 7659 that manifest and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized concluded and irrelevant in the act of Congress in atrocity and outrageous to the common It by which, or other. Justice 43 to constitute “compelling