State of the Education Address

photo courtesy at http://www.newsaroundus.com/2011/06/weighing-pros-and-cons-12-years-of.html

        "Education is the key to success!!!!" an old school saying inserted to our mind that we must study hard to have stability someday when our parents are gone or when the time comes that we will build our own family. It is also goes like this sometimes, "It is the only wealth that we can give you", so take the opportunity and don't waste it.

            But what if  the Education itself is wasting our time? By the form of nonesense lessons and activities that our teacher's gives us.

If you are familiar with the the nine intelligences by Howard Gardner, such as Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”), Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”), Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart), Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”), Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”), Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart), Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”), Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”), Existential Intelligence (http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm)

These intelligences proves that each individual is given with different capability and capacity which is not possessed by his classmates or even his teachers. So why insist a child beyond his limit if he could excel to another?

        The Philippine is one of the country around the world who follows the Prussian Education System, a educational system instructed students on basic educational concepts, such as mathematics, writing, and reading. At the same time, it also taught things like obedience, duty to country, and general ethics. So this means that they are more encouraging those who are in the Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart) and Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart) to study harder and the curriculum being followed by the rest is intended for those in the said intelligence.

        There may be subjects like the Art's  and Music but they are not noted as a major subject but rather focuses on Physical education which is weakness of the student who engage themselves in Arts and Music. Maybe many will think that im biased by posting this blog, but this is what I have observed for a long time and the sad part is it is a cycle this process is happening now and in the future. The greatest contributions in the modern world were the product of creativity of the scientist's and not of the lessons being thought to them but they discover and created it themselves without any lesson plan to follow.

  Although our country belongs to the developing one, we are in the modern times when everything is passing on to computers and machines. How could a College graduate for example be able to hired if he doesn't know even the basics of the word processing software?. Or maybe he may  know but it's the older version?

Facilities and infrastructures, it is where the students stay and learn and will adopt all the learning available, the quality of teacher teaching.......it must be an experienced one because a newly graduate teacher will be repeating the same old module he learned from the past or from his teacher remember that EDUCATION IS NOT PAST BUT FUTURE, they are not educating us for the purpose of past but future.

Although they say that public school graduate is better than those who graduated from private the question there is the opportunities waiting after graduation. It is not whether you are a magna or summa comlaude. It is now the application of what you have learned for almost 14 years!!!!!! 

Affordability, Budget, Education Mismatch, Teacher Quality

The top problem that should be given a right action so that the claimed education is not just a key to success but access to success!!

Behind Break Up's

       To love, to be loved, is the most free thing that we could do afford and feel in this world. One dictionary define love as both action and feeling. The action of love generates a blissful feeling called by the same name. When the action stops, the blissful feeling is replaced with pain. 

       Pain is the most and the worst feeling you would feel when the action of love stops. So the pain starts when a partner tells his or her boyfriend or girlfriend that they will never be able to find anyone else as good as they are, the person with no confidence in themselves will start to believe that and after a break-up will feel inadequate and feel that they aren’t good enough to find someone else.

        Making someone else the center of your world is alright if you first know that you are just as good as they are if not better. Demanding respect out of a relationship because you deserve it should be something you should always seek in a relationship and if your partner can’t give you the respect you deserve you should end the relationship knowing that you can find someone else who will respect you.  

        Feeling the doom and gloom after the break-up, affects your self confidence, when you should still be finding ways to enjoy your life without dwelling on a failed relationship. There is always someone better than you last out there, you just have to make yourself available and know that you are worth it.

        Anyone who has experienced real heartbreak knows that it's not just a melodramatic term. The aching, tight feeling that accompanies such sadness is uncomfortable, but usually not disconcerting. However, for people with broken heart syndrome, it feels scarily similar to a heart attack -- in fact, most people are diagnosed after being taken to the emergency room.

        Broken heart syndrome, also known as stress cardiomyopathy, is a sudden weakness in the heart muscle due to a severely stressful situation. It has the same symptoms as a heart attack -- difficulty breathing, chest pain, and a drop in blood pressure -- but while a heart attack permanently damages the heart, broken heart syndrome's effects are temporary. Also, heart attacks are caused by blocked coronary arteries; people can experience stress cardiomyopathy without existing blockages. This important difference is often how doctors determine one from the other.

In 2005, researchers at John Hopkins University discovered the distinction when they studied the hearts of patients dealing with deaths of family members, car accidents, financial woes, and other anxiety triggers. They postulated that being under such stress causes the brain to release a constant stream of stress hormones like adrenaline into the blood, which makes heart vessels work too hard and reduces pumping strength. However, this is but one theory -- doctors are still trying to determine exactly why adrenaline surges affect heart muscle cells the same way that heart attacks do.

The syndrome might be serious like a heart attack, but luckily it's a temporary condition that can be cleared up in about a week with proper medical care. Mostly people just need time to recover from whatever physical or emotional event shocked their systems enough to cause cardiomyopathy. Even seemingly innocent things like surprise parties and public speaking can spark heart problems; many patients don't have preexisting heart conditions, so it is difficult to tell who is at risk for the syndrome. For reasons still unknown, it does occur more frequently in women than men, particularly postmenopausal women.

 

"there is a myth surrounding breakups, and it is that men are able to deal with it in a better way than women. This however is not true." 

        

         Men generally tend to hide the pain after breaking up, and this is just to sustain his macho image. They hide their real feeling and put on a false face of apathy. When in a relation even though they get the signs, they generally do not try to mend the relationship.  And when the final breakup happens they are caught off guard.  There are however some men who take some action, but unfortunately the actions taken usually make matters much worse.Some even resort to escapism and find solace in alcohol and promiscuity. Instead of dealing with the problem face on they hide behind glass of their favorite poison. They are more prone to getting depressed and feeling stressed.

         The effects of marital breakdown on guys have been recognized, but strangely not advertised anyway near as much as the effects on ladies. Females of course struggle and go through many of the same troubles guys go through and loads of different tribulations as well, however the stresses that are placed on the mental well being of a man is not as well understood.  Perhaps the populace simply has the quaint thought that males will survive as we always do, as if it is just in our nature to endure without any troubles (this is of course total trash). Or if you are a cynic, then you might attribute a focused effort of the media and feminist groups who want to promote females over males. I myself cannot be that cynical however, but I think that this is a part of the problem. Then of course there is simply us guys and our often immovable temperament to not seek assistance and not converse about the problems we face. Combining all these things leads to a lack of info for males going through a rough divorce. So this article will cast the frist stone to speak about the effects of marital breakdown on men.

        If a guy is feeling a number of these problems his mental state, and his life in general, will become a total mess. Enduring this and just moving on cannot be done so straightforwardly when you don’t have a family, a home, and a caring companion left to sustain you. The rug gets pulled out from under a mans feet and the more you try to bury these emotional tribulations the worse they get.

Money tribulations

I think this is secondary to the emotional tribulations but clearly alimony, child support, dividing up the family assets, and all other costs involved in divorce hit a man hard. If the guy was the main worker for the family this can also rouse a certain bitterness which is something lots of males take to their grave rather than fixing. a lot of males find themselves in a situation of being middle aged and feeling like they are now struggling like they once did when they were much younger despite a better career or business. If they have job troubles due to the break up and the emotions you are feelign can increase these worries even more.

Parenthood problems and Hurt Kids

Children of course have their own concerns through divorce, but a guys sense of being a good father is often shattered by separation as well. Most dads end up losing the little ones and must be content with visitation rights on the weekend if that. This can make you question your worthiness of being a dad and can hurt emotionally and socially as humanity as a whole seems to frown upon them as if it is their fault for the marital breakdown and that they cannot care for kids.

Loss of Identity

This is a huge one. To be divorced after putting so much of your life into constructing your marriage, your family, your identity of being a spouse, and perhaps a father too; this is stripped away in just a few moments when you finally realize that the break up is final and you are no longer who you thought you are.

"Can you imagine a world without men?  No crime and lots of happy fat women........thus a world without women is a society full of ugly and ruffian men who do not groom themselves   because no woman is to be impressed"

        

Zooless Society??

view at kawa-kawa

        God created us fairly, although we human's gained his highest form of creation. We are assigned to be it's caretaker, from the highest mountain to the valleys and plains. To the shallow seas down to the deep seas. But what have we done? We become savage and abused this given task.  

      I think Equality doesn't extent to what form of organism you are, but to life-if life will the primary basis of fairness.........we are all fair in a way that we breath the same air, we step on the same ground, we drink the same water and we all die. What I am trying to figure out is the animals beyond the snug cages of the commercial zoos and theme  and amusement parks.

                                                                                                        

 

        Amusement was certainly an important reason   for the establishment of the early zoos, and it remains an important function of contemporary zoos as well. Most people visit zoos in order to be entertained, and any zoo that wishes to remain financially sound must cater to this desire. Even highly regarded zoos have their share of dancing bears, dolphins, penguins, seals, sealions and trained birds of prey. But although providing amusement for people is viewed by the general public as a very important function of zoos, it is hard to see how providing such amusement could possibly justify keeping wild animals in captivity.

         Before we consider the reasons that are usually given for the survival of zoos, we should see that there is a moral presumption against keeping wild animals in captivity. What this involves, after all, is taking animals out of their native habitats, transporting them great distances and keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is severely restricted. It is surely true that in being taken from the wild and confined in zoos, animals are deprived of a great many goods. For the most part they are prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities all require significantly more liberty than most animals are permitted in zoos. If we are justified in keeping animals in zoos, it must be because there are some important benefits that can be obtained only by doing so.

 

        This conclusion is not the property of some particular moral theory; it follows from most reasonable moral theories. Either we have duties to animals or we do not. If we do have duties to animals, surely they include respecting those interests which are most important to them, so long as this does not conflict with other, more stringent duties that we may have. Since an interest in not being taken from the wild and kept confined is very important for most animals, it follows that if everything else is equal, we should respect this interest. Suppose, on the other hand, that we do not have duties to animals. There are two further possibilities: either we have duties to people that sometimes concern animals, or what we do to animals is utterly without moral import. The latter view is quite implausible, and I shall not consider it further. People who have held the former view, that we have duties to people that concern animals, have sometimes thought that such duties arise because we can 'judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.

 

"for amusement, education, opportunities for scientific research, and help in preserving species"

 think of this....what if we reverse the tradition...Humans for amusement, education, opportunities for scientific research, and help in preserving species.......

Source: http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm

Prostitution 101

         

     No business can afford to create a product for which there are no buyers. Prostitution including pornography and other form of commercial sex are of multi-billion dollar industry, it is everywhere and sometimes it is like our prime commodities which you could easily purchased. Prostitution is believed by many to be the world’s oldest profession with its roots taking back to the ancient times. It is commonly believed that prostitutes were only women, but the truth is that prostitutes are widespread of the male gender. Prostitutes let their costumers use their body for its lustful, bizarre, painful or disgusting, and occasionally fatal acts. The business of prostitution is the use of real human beings to support the fantasies of others. Anyone who worked in prostitution who tells his costumers too much about who they really are interferes with the fantasy. They risk losing a customer, and may get a beating as well. In real relationships with real people, you are stuck with the limitations of who you are, who your partner is, and what you can do together without hurting each other.

            Some people do not want real relationships, or feel entitled to something beyond the real relationships they have. They want to play "super stud and sex slave" or whatever, inside their own heads. If they need to support their fantasies with pictures, video tapes, or real people to abuse, the sex trade is ready to supply them. For a price, they can be "a legend in their own minds." The most common type of prostitution customer is the user. He is quite self-centered, and simply wants what he considers to be his needs met. The user would deny any intent to harm anyone, and might even claim some empathy for the sex workers he uses. However, his empathy does not extend to discontinuing his using behavior, nor to helping anyone escape from the sex industry. He does not care whether the person he is using is unwilling or unusually vulnerable. He simply feels entitled to whatever he wants, whenever he wants it. If someone is hurt, that is not his problem.

Maybe the main reason why some people engage this job is poverty, the undying and unresolved problem throughout our history. When the family is poor, or part of a devalued minority group, and opportunities for education and good jobs are limited, some members of those families may be willing to take risks. If the young people are being terrorized, beaten, or sexually abused by the very people who should be protecting them, many are going to take their chances on the street. For some, nude dancing or even prostitution may look better than no job at all. They may have to do prostitution from age 12 or 14, until they turn 18, and can get a "better job" such a nude dancing.

On the other hand although it may not be prevented at least it will be monitored by means of legalizing it. In many other countries as the Netherlands, prostitution is legal, and it seems it is very well taken care of. Also in some cities like Las Vegas it is legal. The decriminalization and legalization of prostitution with reasonable restrictions would overall beneficial to society. If the government will impose taxes to the operators of these sex businesses and establishments it will be an additional fund to the government. Legalizing it also may protect the prostitutes themselves and the costumers against sexually transmitted disease.

".........People who have had luckier lives, as well as those who profit from the sex industry in some way, frequently refer to prostitution and pornography as "victim-less crimes". They point to a tiny fraction of sex workers who actually might be involved by choice. They selectively read history to find some tiny minority, somewhere, at some time, who gained something in the sex business.

                The very selectiveness of their attention indicates that, on some level, they know that for almost everyone, involvement in the sex industry is a terrible misfortune.

                As many old cop will say, "Anyone who thinks prostitution is a victimless crime, hasn’t seen it up close."............"

 

Death penalty Thesis

    DEATH PENALTY:

MORAL AND JUDICIAL DEBATE UNDER THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

Prepared By:

Rica Canon

Denelle Dolleson

Maribel Evasco

Jessica Flores

Carlo Bernardo

Journalism I-A

Ms. Mercy C. Catolico

Prof

English II

Introduction

Problem Statement

        In the long history of the Philippines, the death penalty was known and accepted fact. The code of Kalantiao, the oldest recorded body of laws of our early ancestors showed the strictness under the barangay that existed and based their moral acceptance of right and wrong. For example, anyone caught stealing would be penalized by suffering the loss of finger. The graver the theft, the more fingers were cut and if the theft was very grave, the hands was chopped off, therefore it is understandable that even in the Early periods of our history there are certain punishment for a offense, that even the code of Kalantiao imposed death penalty for rape and murder that is considered as heinous crime.

     

         Today, the State itself has different punishment opposite to its offence, our legislators implement and pass a Bill that will sentenced a grave offender of crime, one of it is the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act which gathers many controversies on its implementation, according to this act a criminal who has been proven guilty to a heinous crime with the proper due process of law will be executed.

    

        “An eye for an eye” does not mean vengeance, for the Almighty God himself said, vengeance is mine and by this he meant he would met justice in accordance with his mysterious way through the Ten Commandments from which morals laws were taken. Precisely no one has the right to deprive another person of his life, degrade him or her to the status of an animal, or abuse and debase a person to the extent of destroying forever his or her dignity. But how about the victims? Those who were murdered and raped, those children who were abduct for ramson and then killed, for those school kids and teenagers who buys drugs and in the process slowly or make them criminals, rapist and murderers while the pushers enrich themselves.

             

          The death penalty itself on the other hand could strike fear in the minds of those criminals and make them think twice before committing any act of violence. That the Capital punishment may act as an instrument with which the righteous may be guarded against the offender. The enforcement of Capital Punishment under proper circumstances places a high value on human life and upholds dignity of man, than making him stop to the level of criminals by lashing out at them with similar brutality in the guise of justice.

      

        In the Philippines where there is no clean and fair justice system, there is no doubt that if ever the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act is reimposed there are many Filipino who will lose their right to life and many will be sentenced with death penalty and die as it is said those who have less in life, have less in law, that the death penalty will be biased to the poor ones who could be easily accused by the rich one or those who were set up to be pointed out as the criminal. As long as bail is pegged on wealth and the enforcement of law is swayed by money, position and possessions, the death penalty will be a sword of Damocles over the head of the impoverished and the weak.

       

         We have not repented and turned from our evil ways, we continue to miss the mark. And so we become desperate and hope to eradicate crime by wasting or executing the sinner, not the sin.

Hypotheses

        This study tested well the hypothesis that there are significant, relevant and argumentative concepts and ideas involving the analysis of death penalty under the Philippine Government. The study is an analysis of the extent of the abolishment of death penalty: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government specifically it sought answer to the following questions:

1.      Do death penalty control and decrease the crime rate in the Philippines?

2.      What are the reasons why death penalty was abolished?

3.      What will be the possible psychological effect of death penalty to the criminals that was in jail?

4.      What is the possible role of the church?

Rationale and Limitation of the Study

        The study was limited to the analysis of the abolishment of the Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Act: Moral and Judicial debate under the Philippine Government. The study does not include other phrases such as how, where, and what are the methods nor the process in death penalty.

The Capital Punishment

        The expression Capital Punishment or the Death Penalty is ambiguous, referring to a species of acts, acts of executing someone for conduct judge to be criminal. It often refers to a certain kind of social institution. The institution of capital punishment is one pattern of punishment that forms part of our legal system in many, but not all, societies. It involves certain roles like those of the executioner and the criminal and certain rules such as the rule that only person condemned to death by courts is to be executed. In most society, the punishment for murder is execution. In the Philippines we have the same act, the R.A. no. 7659 or the death penalty act.

Two Theories on Death Penalty

Classical theory (on which our Revised Penal Code is based) regards crime as the product of human free will, and the purpose of penalty as retribution. Man is held accountable for felonious acts only if such free will remains unimpaired. For penal purposes, emphasis is placed more on the act than on the man himself, and a direct proportion is established between crime and penalty according to severity of the offense. Hence, the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Positivist theory, on the other hand, views human free will as a myth or at least a debatable matter. According to it, man is subdued to occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which contrains him to do wrong contrary to his free will. For this reason, man as a moral being is given primacy over deed, and crime is viewed as a social phenomenon that can't be checked by retributive transactions, but by measures designed, cure or educate the criminal.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

       

        WHEREAS, the Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 19 paragraph (1) thereof, states "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.

        WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of  their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society;

        WHEREAS, 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 while at the same time has undermined the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in the country;

        WHEREAS, the Congress, in the justice, public order and the rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the death penalty for said crimes;

        Now, therefore,

Sec. 1.  Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society;

Sec. 2.  Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."

        No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.

        Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."

Sec. 6.  Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

 Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1.      With treachery, taking advantage to superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2.      In consideration of price, reward or promise.

3.      By means of inundation, fire poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel, derailment of assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with use of any means involving great waste and ruin.

4.      On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5.      With evident premeditation.

6.      With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Sec. 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

         Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1.      By using force or intimidation.

2.      When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3.      When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed it the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1.      When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.

2.      When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.

3.      When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

4.      When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

5.      When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.

6.      When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.

7.      When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."

Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug.

Sec. 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

        Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of the Death Penalty Cases. -  The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration.  The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter."

Sec. 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

        Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. -  The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age.  In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.

        In all cases where the death sentence has become final, the records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power."

ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

        The classical and contemporary literature on the subject of capital punishment provides several very plausible arguments designed to prove that the act of executing a person for conduct judge to be criminal is sometimes right.

Prevention

        Capital punishment is sometimes morally justified as a means of preventing the criminal from committing additional crimes. By his past action the criminal has shown himself to be wicked and dangerous. Anyone deprived enough to murder or rape once is very likely to act in socially harmful ways again. The only sure way to prevent such a person from going on to murder or rape in the future is to execute him. Imprisonment is a far less effective means of protecting society from such dangerous criminals. Most prisoners are freed after a time-often having become most dangerous than when they entered prison-by parole, pardon or the expiration of their sentences. In any case, escape is always possible. And even within the confines of prison, a condemned criminal may murder or rape a guard, a fellow inmate or a visitor. Executing a condemned criminal is the only sure way to prevent him from committing additional acts of crime. Since it is the only right to protect the innocent member of the society from the most serious crimes, capital punishment is sometimes right.

Retribution

        While the arguments from preventions and deterrence look to the future and attempt to justify capital punishment by an appeal to the future harm it will avoid, the argument from retribution looks to the past and tries to justify capital punishment as the right response to the wrong that has been done. Granted that society would be unjustified in taking a person's life in punishment for any trivial crime, capital punishment is just retribution for the greatest crimes. If one person has killed another, it is only fir that he give his own life in return. Kidnapping and rape are also very wrong that the person who commits these acts deserves the greatest penalty, death. Justice demands that each individual be treated by others and by society as he deserves. The person who does good act ought to be rewarded with good, and the person who does evil ought to suffer evil-each in proportion to the good or evil done. The conception of justice implicit in this argument has traditionally been illustrated by the figure of  a blindfold woman holding a set of balance scales. The woman is blindfolded so that she cannot recognize her friends and enemies and award the former more good and the latter more evil than they deserve. The balance scale symbolizes the element of retribution, the notion that good or evil are to be awarded in return to the good or evil he has done. Applied to punishment, this means that the punishment should fit the crime that the evil inflicted upon the condemned criminal should be in proportion to the degree of harm he has done. Since the only penalty bad enough to equal the greatest crime is death, and since justice requires that the criminal receive just retribution for his past misdeeds, and since it is right to do what justice requires, capital punishment or death penalty is sometimes right.

Self-Defense

        Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is sometimes an exercise of society's right to self defense. Although it is generally wrong for one human being to take the life of another, there are exceptional cases where this is morally justified, A person has  right to kill his attacker if this is necessary to preserve his life or limb. Society, like the individual, has the right to preserve itself when its very existence is threatened. Now a murderer attacks not only his individual victim, but the society itself. Since society is constituted by aggregate of individuals, to kill one or more individual is already to begin to exterminate the society. Moreover, certain laws, such as the law prohibiting murder, are necessary if any collections of individuals are to live together in organized society. Hence, to break those laws that alone make the existence of society possible is to threaten that society with death. Capital punishment is sometimes right because it is right for society to exercise its self defense, and in extreme cases capital punishment or death penalty does not defend the society from the attacks of a criminal that threaten its very existence.

ARGUMENTS AGAINTS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

        Any serious moral problem is two-sided. If all or most of the relevant considerations are on one side of the fence, everyone knows where the right course of action lies and there is no real moral problem. In the case of every live moral issue, like that of capital punishment, there is room for sincere and persistent disagreement because plausible arguments on one side can be met with equally plausible argument on the other side of the issue. Having surveyed the arguments in support of capital punishment, let us look at the arguments of those who insist that capital punishment is always wrong, that it is never right to execute the condemned criminal no matter how evil his crime.

The Moral Law

        Capital punishment is always wrong because it is always a violation of moral laws. The moral law consists of those rules that specify which kinds of acts are morally right and which kinds are morally wrong. Historically, it has been thought of in various ways. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the moral law is usually taken to be the set of commands issued by God, whether limited to the Ten Commandments or including the many mandates inscribed in the book of the bible. Rationalistic philosopher have tended to ignore or reject revelation and think of moral laws as self-evident truths about right and wrong discoverable by the natural light of human reason. However the moral law may be conceived, it is usually presumed to forbid killing, to prohibit the intentional killing of human being. Since the moral law declares that killing a human being is always wrong and since the act of capital punishment is obviously an act of killing a human being, capital punishment or death penalty is always wrong.

Monstrous Harm

        Capital punishment or the death penalty is always wrong because it is always wrong to do monstrous harm. Although lesser evils may be outweighed by greater goods, there are some acts that do such great harm that under no circumstances could they be morally justified. The Nazi extermination of million of Jews inflicted such monstrous harm upon these innocent people that no real or imagined benefits to humanity could overweigh its wrongness. On a lesser scale, capital punishment also does almost indescribable harm. By definition, it deprives its victim of his every life. The loss of a human life is the greatest of evil because life is the most precious of all human goods. Not only is life the necessary condition of any other good at all, it is intrinsically good to the highest degree. That we prize life above all other things is shown by the way we cling to life and resist death even when everything else seems lost.

        In addition to the obvious harm of inflicting death, capital punishment causes cruel and inhuman suffering. It may be that the moment of death is almost painless, although this is not always so. Still, the period of awaiting execution is one of the most unrelieved tortures. With few if any interesting activities to distract the condemned prisoner, there is little to think about but impending doom. Under these conditions, the fear of death, the deepest and most terrifying of all the fears natural to the human psyche, results in a condition anxiety approaching constant anguish.

Unnecessary Evil

        Some evils are morally justified because they are necessary. Under duress of circumstances, it may be necessary to do evil because that is the only possible way to avoid some greater evil. The butchering of cattle, sheep and swine may be justified by the fact that this is only way of sustaining the human population. Unfortunate as it is that any animal need die, it is less bad that the brute animals perish than that human beings starve to death. This line of argument does not justify hunting wild animals for mere pleasure, of course, for hunting is an necessary evil. Only necessary evils, only those that must be done in order to prevent some worse calamity, are morally right. Now it may be argued that the execution of criminals, like the killing of cattle, is necessary evil. The suffering and death inflicted by capital punishment, evil as they are, are justified by the fact that the death penalty is the only effective means of protecting society from the even greater evils of murder, rape and kidnapping. But this is not so. Capital punishment is not necessary because there is another equally effective and less undesirable means of dealing with crime. Life imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment in preventing and deterring crime. The condemned criminal cannot continue his evil actions under close supervision, and the fear of life imprisonment will deter potential criminal from doing wrong. Moreover, life imprisonment is a lesser evil than capital punishment. Admittedly, it inflicts loss of freedom, personal humiliation and extreme boredom upon the criminal. But suffering is required by the very nature and purpose of punishment, and these evils are less cruel than death and the agony of awaiting death. Since the death penalty is an unnecessary evil and it is always wrong to do unnecessary evil, capital punishment is always wrong.

Irremediability

        Capital punishment is wrong because it is irremediable; there is no remedy for the act of execution. Unfortunately, there re occasion when even the sternest advocate of harsh punishment deeply desire some remedy, for innocent persons are occasionally condemned to death. Such judicial errors do not take place often, or at least are not often detected, but when they do occur, we rebel at this gratuitous loss of innocent life and yearn for some remedy. Not all punishment are beyond remedy. If someone is fined by the court as a penalty for alleged wrongdoing, his money can be restored to him if it is subsequently discovered that he is innocent. If a person's innocence is established after he has spent several years in prison, restitution is not possible. There is no way in which society can give back to someone wrongly condemned those lost years of his life or undo the suffering he has lived through. Still, some compensation is possible. Society can give its innocent victim a considerable sum of money to repay him, in part at least, for what he has suffered at its hand. It would be naively sentimental to pretend that any compensation would adequately balance the harm inflicted upon the person unjustly condemned to imprisonment, but some partial and imperfect remedy is available for any such miscarriage of justice. In the case of capital punishment, no remedy of any kind is available to make up in the slightest degree for the incalculable evil done by taking the life of an innocent human being. Neither restitution nor compensation is possible, for there is no way in which society can give a person's life back to him and no way to do good to someone who is dead and gone. Since the possibility of error can never be eradicated from any human judicial procedure, irremediable penalties are always wrong. Since capital punishment is an irremediable judicial penalty, it is always wrong.

On the Abolition of the Death Penalty

        The Commission on Human Rights has opposed the enactment of any law re-imposing the

death penalty law in the Philippines on the ground that it offends the dignity of human person and

human rights. Article II, Section11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

"The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full

respect for human rights".

        The aforesaid provision is in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights

and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines had ratified,

guarantees that every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by

law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The Congress of the Philippines, nevertheless, enacted Republic Act No. 7659 imposing the death sentence with the motivation that the law will be a deterrent to the commission of heinous crimes, as enumerated in the aforesaid statute. Statistics, however, show that the expectation of the Philippine Congress has not been realized. Despite the enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, ore heinous crimes have been committed. From January to October 1999, the reported cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime under the statute, have substantially increased. Only recently, the President of the Philippines expressed his second thoughts on the

imposition of the death penalty. He has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of

prisoners in Muntinlupa. House Bill Nos. 6083, introduced by Representative Salacnib F. Baterina, and 8844, introduced by Representative Roan L. Libarios, have proposed the repeal of republic Act

No. 7659.

Indeed, the Philippines, known as a predominantly Christian country, by enacting the death

penalty law, has returned to the ancient era of Lex Taliones -" life for a life, tooth for a tooth" - a

system blatantly contradictory to the higher values of law and justice. Pope John Paul II, in his

"Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life)" issued on 25 March 1995, said that modern society

now has all the means of effectively suppressing all crimes by rendering harmless without definitely

denying them the chance to reform. Moreover, the concept of heinous crimes is now limited to

grievous offenses like genocide or international terrorism when the security of the state is placed in

danger.

The Commission on Human Rights, since the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 and the

execution of the first death sentence of Leo Echegaray, recommended to the Philippine Senate to

ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming the

Abolition of Death Penalty. The said Protocol states that the abolition of the death penalty

contributes to the enhancement of the dignity and progressive development of human rights.

Criminality can be fought with sincere and effective law enforcement and impartial administration

of justice. The said Protocol has already been ratified by more than one-half of all the countries and

territories. It is about time that the Philippines join the trend in the United Nations to eliminate

death penalty in local statutes.

The Commission on Human Rights issues this Human Rights Advisory addressed to the

President and the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines for their appropriate action and all the person who value the dignity of the human person and the preservation and sanctity of life.

THE PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

          Does the State have the right and authority to impose the capital punishment and put a criminal to death?  Advocates of human rights oppose capital punishment and say it is cruel, inhuman, uncivilized and inconsistent with reason. The constitution of the Philippines has abolished capital punishment but does not prohibit Congress to impose death penalty for the heinous crime. Today our legislators have yet to define and rule on what constitutes a heinous crime.

             Henry Davis, theologian support the view: God has given to the State the right over life and death as he has given to everyman the right of self-defense against aggression. This moral power of the State has been universally acknowledge in Christian tradition. It is explicitly declared in Scripture to have existed in the Jewish State (Exodus 22:18); it was recognized in the Roman Polity by Paul (Romans 13:4); “for he (the prince) is God's minister to them for good. But if they do that which is evil; fear; for the beareth not the sword in vain”

           He therefore declared that every person has the right to live without unjust molestation from the others. Capital punishment is therefore unnecessary for peace and security of life and property. In his thinking capital punishment is deterrent so that citizen may live and go about their activities with our molestation. Nonetheless he allows capital punishment under the following conditions:

1.      The criminal is given due process in the court

2.      The crime imputed to him must be deserving of the highest possible punishment.

3.      The guilt of the criminal is sufficiently proved beyond any doubt

        Capital Punishment or Death Penalty is a destructive action which needs a special justification, a special pleading. Capital punishment should never be compared with surgery where the intention is the preservation of life and not the extinction of life. Directly harmful actions which do not bring benefit to one who suffers them are hard to justify. Such that capital punishment for it directly destroy the life of a person, preventing him to make amends and to change his life. Indeed, it is presumed that the State has the duty to rehabilitate criminals.

        Bernard Haring suggest that crimes re the result of socio environmental conditions. He declares as his personal conviction “that the State has no right to uphold the death penalty unless it has done all in time power to give better education and to care for a more just and humane environment” he notes.

Recapituation: there are two probable opinions with Christianity and within the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. This author favor to the reimposition of death penalty for heinous crimes and for as long as the conditions providing for a just and honest trials of criminals are observed strictly Philippines situation indicates that life imprisonment is not a very promising alternative.

 Newspaper Clip: Views on Reimposition Of Death Penalty

        The Republic Act No. 7659 also known as the Death Penalty Act has undergone different analysis and interpretations thus its implementation says will decrease the Philippines crime rate, but it remains unquestionable.

Death Penalty for Graft and Corruption

        DELICADEZA: A combination of delicadeza and public opinion led to the withdrawal of Zoe Baird, one of America's ablest women lawyers, as President Clinton's nominee for attorney general. She was the first woman ever to be nominated for the position. Reason for withdrawal: She had hired a Peruvian couple who were illegal immigrants. In the Philippines, delicadeza and public opinion cannot pry everyone who has already been nominated for a high position out of a job especially if he has already been installed. We seek refuge behind the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. This theory leaves no room for either public opinion or delicadeza. We are only fouled weather democrats.

Death Penalty for Drugs

        According to reports in the regional press, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization has urged all ASEAN member states to impose the death penalty for drug trafficking. At a recent meeting in Kuala, Lumpur, delegates from five member states, including the Philippines, agreed that trafficking in over 15 grams of heroin or morphine should be made a capital offense.

1. Meriam Santiago said the number of crimes committed daily rose to 34.3 percent in 1990, during which there were 5,193 index crimes reported representing what she called a significant increase in crime against property, life and chastity.

              “as an immigration commissioner, I was privy to intelligence reports on the activities of global criminal syndicates, which use the Philippines as the transhipment centers for drugs in Asia. Only the death penalty will deter the syndicate”.

She pointed out that the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, and from that time, police reports show that an average of two people is killed daily.

         “In Manila, from the time death penalty was abolished, the criminality rate rose by more than 100    percent”. she said.

2. Bengson a practicing lawyer, said legislator as representatives of the people should now take heed of their constituents' voice. He noted that even among churchmen, there is division on weather death penalty is moral.

           “In the face of such doubt, the people's voice should be the final arbiter”, he said.

He noted the near unanimity of law enforcers, prosecutors, justices, and local officials on the necessity of reimposing the death penalty.

        “Letters to newspaper editors and phoned-in comments on public affairs radio and television shows popular support for the death penalty”, Bengson added.

He also contested arguments that the state will be just like the criminals if it puts murderers to death.

           “A Government that is unwilling to put its most hardened and incorrigible criminals to death will find its citizens at the mercy of criminals who find nothing wrong with putting innocent people to death”, he said.

He added that outlawing or banning the death penalty will be tantamount to giving the wrong signals to criminal elements.

             “We'll be saying to them: “You can kill innocent women, children, and old people but be assured that your own life is safe because we don't allow the death penalty,” he said.

3. Judge Tirso Velasco, presiding judge of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 88, said his colleagues acknowledge the need for restoration of the death penalty.

1.      The death penalty should be implemented only according to the gravity of the crime against the person.

2.      The death penalty will prevent more heinous crime.

3.      The reimposition of the death penalty will comply with the biblical principle of an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

4. Judge Maximino Asuncion of RTC Branch 104 said that while he was not sure that the death penalty will reduce incidence of crime, a majority clamors its reimposition.

           “Everybody should have their own share of the law,” he said

The 1986 Constitution abolished the death penalty, but allowed Congress to reimpose it on certain heinous crimes.

5. Fourteen of fifteen justices of the Supreme Court, support the reimposition of the death penalty.

The association of Governors, City and Town Mayors and Councilors also favor the restoration of capital punishment.

6. A 20,000- strong student organization threatened not to vote and campaign against a Senator who oppose the death penalty if they seek re-election.

7. When deposed President Marcos declared Martial Law in 1972, he ordered a notorious Chinese Drug pusher executed by musketry under the dangerous drugs law. The execution sent shock waves down drug pushing, addiction and illegal importation of drugs for their sale was down to a trickle.

8. The penalty for peddling drug is death in at least six Asian countries. Malaysia showed the way on July 7, 1985. Death to drug dealers is mandatory in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Singapore. The People's Republic of China has many times reported execution of drug pusher.

9. In the United States which is made up of 50 states, only 11 states have abolished capital punishment namely Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Winconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine.

10. Prof. Ed Garcia, principal author of the provision abolishing the death penalty in the 1987 Constitution, cites an 1989 Amnesty International Study of the use of the death penalty in the Philippines which presents case of studies of at least eight instances where judicial mistakes had resulted in the death penalty being imposed on innocent individuals and one case in 1958 where it was carried out and blameless farmer's life snuffled out.

11. Another useful statistics of study made on the death penalty in the Philippines from 1946-1976 showed that of 63 persons on whom the death penalty was imposed only three came from so called middle class family background while the rest were from what are referred to as the disadvantages sector.

12.  August 12, 1991 Senators who favor the return of the death penalty are confident they have enough vote to pass the proposal the next day, but their pro-life colleagues are about to give up the fight.

Summary

        This study determined the debates on death penalty referring to moral and judicial control under the Philippine Government. It further elaborated on the disputes of opinions and facts regarding the unresolved issue rooming continuously to present times.

        Though, it specifically answers the following questions:

1.      What are the revised penal laws indicated for the said capital punishment issue?

2.      What are the biblical oaths in accordance to death penalty offenses?

3.      What are the pros and cons of capital punishment?

4.      What are the arguments for capital punishment and arguments against capital punishment?

Conclusions

        Significant and relevant yet argumentative views showed further concerns with the reimposition of capital punishment. Vehement forms of idealistic battles pertaining to purposive biblical, theoretical, judicial and moral facts give it's way to the complication and inconsistencies to which laws governing the country are oftenly refined.

        Large numbers of politicians were merely in approvement with the reimposition as of the times heinous crimes were observed frequently during their terms of service and left death penalty as the only option for the hinderance of such pandemonium in the society and evaluations by other countries as basis for the inactment.

        Abolition of Republic Act No. 7659 was much praised because it was proven that capital punishment is not always succeeding in preventing heinous crimes and will only deprive the country's capability and irredibility towards authenticity and fairness in judgement. Fundamental right of every human being to life and dignity of human person and preservation and sanctity of life were highly and truly valued.

 References

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1993/ra_7659_1993.html

http://www.worldcoalition.org/modules/accueil/index.php?sel_lang=english&gclid=CP3Ama3k46cCFQ8jHAodbT3J-Q

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ornellaspaper.htm

http://www.squidoo.com/abolishthedeathpenalty

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/anc/01/22/11/weighing-death-penalty-debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate

http://www.helium.com/items/68046-death-penalty-in-the-philippines

http://library.thinkquest.org/23685/data/opinions.html

http://www.thelangreport.com/brain-food/death-penalty-the-controversey-continues/