Should the Death Penalty Be Reimposed in the Philippines?

The question of whether the Philippines should reimpose the death penalty is one that evokes strong emotions on both sides. To some, it represents justice—a fitting punishment for heinous crimes. But to many others, especially in light of the country’s broken justice system, it is a dangerous and outdated tool that brings more harm than good. After reflecting on the article, it becomes clear that reinstating capital punishment in the Philippines is not only unnecessary, but also unjust, especially for the most vulnerable members of society.

First, the argument that the death penalty deters crime simply does not hold up under scrutiny. Empirical evidence from around the world—including countries that have already abolished the death penalty—shows no significant correlation between capital punishment and lower crime rates. The death penalty does not address the root causes of criminality, such as poverty, lack of education, and systemic corruption. If the goal is to make communities safer, then resources are better spent improving law enforcement, speeding up court processes, and investing in community development. As Rappler’s article emphasized, deterrence is not about fear of punishment, but the certainty and swiftness of justice—something the Philippine legal system still struggles to deliver.

Another deeply troubling aspect of the death penalty is its error-prone nature. No justice system is perfect, and the Philippine legal framework is particularly flawed. With a backlog of cases, underpaid and overworked public attorneys, and cases hinging on unreliable evidence or confessions obtained under duress, the risk of wrongful conviction is alarmingly high. A justice system that cannot guarantee fairness and accuracy has no business deciding who lives and who dies. As the article points out, you can release a wrongly imprisoned person, but you can never bring back someone who was unjustly executed.What’s more, the death penalty disproportionately affects the poor. In the Philippines, where wealth often determines the quality of legal defense one can access, the rich can afford top-tier lawyers while the poor are left with little support. This inequality turns the death penalty into an anti-poor weapon. Those who cannot afford bail, bribes, or a competent defense are far more likely to end up on death row. Justice should be blind, but in reality, it is often blind only to the needs of the marginalized.

Finally, reimposing the death penalty risks being misused in a political climate where due process is already under threat. In a country where extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses have made international headlines, giving the state the power to execute is a move that demands far greater trust in the legal system than the current conditions allow.

Reinstating the death penalty might feel like a quick fix to rampant criminality, but it fails to address the systemic issues plaguing the Philippine justice system. Rather than bringing true justice, it risks repeating injustices with deadly consequences. What the Philippines needs is not harsher punishments, but a fairer, more effective, and compassionate legal system that upholds the dignity of every Filipino—rich or poor, guilty or innocent.