As an independent bodycreated bythe Philippine Constitution to protect and promote humanrights in the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights has made the following policy study on the justification and the efficacy of capital punishment. This is pursuantto thevital state policyas stated in Article II, Section 11 of the Philippine Constitution that “The State values the dignity of every human person and guaranteesfull respect for humanrights”. Since the imposition ofthe death penalty in the country, about 350 persons as of this date have beensentenced to death bytrial courts. Data gathered fromthe Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) showthat at the end of 1994, there were 24 death penaltyconvicts; at the end of 1995, the number of convicts rose to 90, an average of 7 convicts per month (twice the monthly average of capital sentences imposed in 1994). From January to June 1996, the numberof death penalty convicts reach 72, an average of 12 convicts per month, almost twice the monthly average of capital sentences imposedtheprior year. Ecumenical studies of religious sectors revealed that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrentto violent crimes. In a paper submitted to the CHR dated September6, 1991, the National Council of Churchesin the Philippines (NCCP) concluded: “There are several studies which prove that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent to violent crimes. The UN conducted recently a survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates. The report has concluded that “this research has failed to provide scientific proof the executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. The evidenceas a wholestill gives no positive supportto the deterrent hypothesis. Dr. Roger Hood from Oxford University found that the numberof homicides in several countries including Canada, Australia and Jamaica has stayed the same or even fallen after the abolition. In France, the number of blood crimes has decreased since the abolition of death penalty. The use of death penalty as a political deterrent to terrorism andpolitical violenceis considered a special case by most governments. Amnesty International is not aware of any evidence that the use of death penalty has deterred would-be terrorists. Psychiatrists who have conducted studies on the question of hijacking recommendstrongly that the death penalty not be executed in such cases precisely because it makes the crime appear morespectacular and drawsgreater attention to the perpetrators. The Lutheran Church in America renders invalid the deterrence theory in capital punishment whentheysaid: “Insights from both criminal psychology and the social cause of crime indicate the impossibility of demonstrating a deterrent values in capital punishment. The Fellowship of Reconciliation in their appeal to end all executions is seeking restoration and notretribution. They said that “The United States Supreme Court has (Gregg vs. Georgia) noted that there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. The Fellowship believes that “capital crimes are often impulsive and unplanned, and neither the presenceof the death penaltynor the frequencyof executions have been shown to have anysignificant effect on homicide rates.”