RESOLUTION ON THE RE-EXAMINATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY LAW(R.A. NO. 7659) INTRODUCTION The prevailing consensus among the membersof the Philippine Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution was against the imposition of death penalty. As a compromise with those whoargued for death penalty, a provision left to Congress to enactlegislation to reimpose death penalty “unless for compelling reasons involving heinouscrimes.” Thus, Art. III, Section 19 of the Philippine Constitution reads: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishmentinflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposedshall be reducedto reclusion perpetua.” Sometime in 1993, in view of the rise in the incidence of crimes, several sectors clamored for the enactmentof a law to restore death penalty. The Armed Forces of the Philippines wasofthe view thatthe supervision of death penalty was an obstacle to peace and orderanda hindranceto the goals of national security. Several sectors argued that the imposition of death penalty will serve as a deterrent to the commission of heinouscrimes. Those who argued against death penalty claim that the death penalty is a violation of the right to life as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and constitutes the ultimate form of torture. The Amnesty International (AJ), for instance, maintains that capital punishment does not produce retributive Justice andis contrary to the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which the Philippines ratified on October 23, 1986. The Commission on Human Rights in its CHR Resolution No. Ag91-033 cautioned against the restoration of death penalty and recommendedreformsfor a moreeffective enforcementof penallaws. RESTORATION OF DEATH PENALTY After long protracted debates in Congress, Republic Act No. 7659 entitled “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the RPC, As Amended, and other Special Penal Laws and for Other Purposes”, was finally approved on October 13, 1993. Recently, however, several sectors of society especially the human rights groups demanded a review of the enactmentof Philippine Congress imposing death penalty. Does the death penalty actually serve as deterrent to violent crimes as professed by the authors of the law? Is the death penalty law consistent with the International instruments signed by the Philippines? The moral justification and humaneconsideration of death penalty have also been raised.