act.66 The Philippines has a long tradition in law and practice of honoring its international obligations under treaties.67 It is most accepted that a treaty assumes a double character, as a source of international obligations and as domestic law.68 For the Philippines to renege on its international obligations under treaties is to also disregard its domestic law. V. “Heinous Crimes”: The 1987 Philippine Constitution Because, for the reasons given above, any attempt to reintroduce the death penalty in the Philippines is illegal. Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to consider the effect of Section 19 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. But the same provision in fact provides additional compelling grounds for the invalidity and illegality of the proposed laws. Section 19 provides: 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 69 reclusion perpetua. Section 19 represents a considered recognition that at the time it was drafted, the domestic law of the Philippines should no longer provide for the death penalty in any circumstances. The proviso to Section 19 was limited in two ways. First, it required an assessment by Congress that there existed compelling reasons to reinstate the death penalty. Secondly, it imposed a permanent limitation for the purposes of the domestic law of the Philippines – the death penalty could thereafter be re-imposed only for “heinous crimes.”70 Finally, there can never be any compelling reasons to justify reinstatement of the death penalty, “the compelling reason required by the constitution was that the State has done everything in its command so that it can be justified to use an inhuman punishment called death penalty.”71 The framers of the 1987 Constitution provided various reasons why this provision was included. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, one of the constitutional commissioners, explained that the imposition of death penalty inflicts traumatic pain on the convict and the family 66 Id. at 55. See, e.g., Marubeni v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 76573, 177 S.C.R.A. 500 (Sept. 14, 1989); La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-63796-97, 129 S.C.R.A. 373 (May 02, 1984); KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-52153-54 (Nov. 17, 1980). 68 MAGALLONA, supra note 65 at 51. 69 PHIL. CONST. art. III, § 19 (1). 70 People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117427 (Feb. 07, 1997). 71 Id. 67 Page 21 of 23