Rise in heinous crimes in the country warrants the imposition of death penalty


CONVINCED that the rise in the incidents of heinous crimes in the country is proof that the imposition of life imprisonment failed to deter criminality, deputy minority leader Vicente Sotto 3rd, is now pushing for the reinstatement of the death penalty, a move that may put him on a collision course with the Church.

In filing Senate Bill 2080 or an act imposing death penalty in the Philippines, Sotto noted that the penalty of death is appropriately necessary “due to the alarming upsurge of such crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the nation’s efforts towards sustainable economic development and prosperity.

Sotto said that while the Philippine constitution bars the imposition of excessive, cruel, degrading and inhumane punishment including death penalty, the constitution also allows such penalty as long as there is compelling reason involving heinous crimes.

The deputy minority leader noted the the measure reimposing death penalty for heinous crimes was passed during the 10th congress because of compelling reasons and he believes that the influx of heinous crimes at present is enough reason for congress to repeal Republic Act No. 9346 otherwise known as “An act prohibiting the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”.

“Life imprisonment does not deter crimes but with death penalty  there is a big chance because  when you look at the definition of death in the dictionary the meaning of the death is also to  inhibit,” Sotto explained.

He added that by inhibiting someone who committed a heinous crime, it means that you prevent him or her from committing the same crime again.

Sotto insisted that the peace and order situation in the country is very alarming and even cited the case of a six-year-old girl who was killed after being sexually abused by a pedicab driver who claimed to be under the influence of illegal substance.

According to Sotto the incident is just one of the many heinous crimes given special attention by the media and there are many equally shocking crimes that were not reported in the news.

He insisted that the re imposition of the death penalty would not only instill fear in criminals but would also prevent those already convicted from doing the same crime again.

Sotto however maintained being pro-life but only for the unborn and the Filipino family and not for the heinous criminals.

“I’m prolife as far as the unborn and the filipino family is cocnerned but I am pro-death for heinous criminals,” he added.

Senators Jinggoy Estrada and JV Ejercito have expressed openness over Sotto’s proposal for as long as it will be for heinous crimes.

Estrada, who is currently facing plunder raps before the Office of the Ombudsman, is convinced that peace and order situation in the country is getting worse and it is time to consider the imposition of the death penalty.

Ejercito expressed belief that imposing extreme punishment to criminals could help deter heinous crimes and since the country already experienced what it is like without death penalty, it is time to consider its reinstatement.

“It’s a very controversial issue, but It’s hard to have peace and order if criminals always get away with it,” he added.

Senators Nancy Binay, Cynthia Villar, Antonio Trillanes 4th, Bam Aquino, and Pia Cayetano on the other hand expressed opposition over the proposal  noting that there are other ways to stop the influx of crimes in the country. Jefferson Antiporda


Please follow our commenting guidelines.


  1. First and foremost I support Capital punishment. However: with that being said there is too much corruption at all levels of government which scares me that some innocent individuals will be put to death. With the lackadaisical approach that many local police have, much of the forensics evidence is gathered inappropriately or not at all, evidence disappears or never produced. Police, Lawyers, Judges and everyone in between can be bribed especially if a wealthy individual is involved or behind the scenes. How can a government without guilty conscious put someone to death not knowing if the accused is 100% guilty with unquestionable evidence. Hearsay, circumstantial evidence can not ever be used in a death penalty case. Planted evidence by corrupt individuals would be a huge concern. These are just a few of the huge hurdles that need to be overcome first.

  2. If it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of heinous crime then death penalty is fitting. Too many criminals are getting away with murder, for a nation that needed discipline, this is a fitting punishment. Tell the catholic church to simply tend to their flocks spiritual needs and leave the lawmaking to the legislative body of the government. Our constitution has a provision for the separation of the church and the government. Catholic church butt out, the country is crying out for justice.

  3. As an undergraduate many years ago, I was given an experiment to carry out. This involved a worm seeking refuge in a tube, which is an instinctive and highly motivated behaviour. The experiment involved giving the worm a mild electric shock as it entered the tube, which then ,in theory deterred it from entering the tube. I set up my electrodes, but not very well, so that sometimes the worm received a shock, but sometimes it didn’t. The result was that the worm continued to enter the tube. Unsuccessful experiment? Maybe not, I drew the conclusion that to deter we need to punish every transgression, hence the punishment of crime is less important than its detection. In a small village crime hardly exists because any crime is quickly detected. Therefor it is unlikely the death penalty would reduce crime by much but better detection is the key to reducing crime.