TACLOBAN CITY, Philippines —– Church leaders in this city propounded their aversion to the planned re-imposition of the death penalty by presumptive President Rodrigo Duterte, as a deterrent to heinous crimes.
They preferred instead on improvement in the country’s criminal justice system than having a national policy of taking life for life, contending that “once there is a mistake to the decision made and death penalty has been meted, it cannot reverse back life in itself.”
Ricardo Aban, stake president of The Church of Christ in the Latter Day Saints in this city, said he is hoping Duterte will reconsider his decision of reviving the death penalty.
“Death penalty is the most inhumane form of penalty, it is cruel, it is the harshest thing that will afflict human being and has no room for mercy. Sentencing someone to death denies someone his rights to live, which life is a gift given by God to man.”
Father Ivo Velasquez, a formator in St. John the Evangelist School of Theology in Palo, Leyte, said: “When you seek to put an end to life for a life that was lost, often it is not justice that you seek, but vengeance. Revenge has never made a society robust and secure (but) only makes it even more fearful and cowardly.”
Tacloban City Vice Mayor Jerry “Sambo” Yaokasin, a pastor of the Filipino-Chinese Christian Church, however, supported Duterte’s call for the re-imposition of the death penalty, but for heinous crimes alone, such as rape and illegal drugs.
Yaokasin believed that lethal punishment is necessary especially for repeat offenders with no chance for reformation, but he countered that the criminal justice system must be strengthened first before restoring the death penalty.
The justice system must “ensure that no innocent person will be meted the death penalty due to fabricated evidences and erroneous judgment by the courts,” he said.
Velasquez clarified that death penalty is not absolutely disapproved of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but calls for certain conditions.
Catechism Number 2267 states, “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
It added, “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
Velasquez explained: “There is a possibility of it being permitted even by church teaching, with the conditions (that) the identity and responsibility of the guilty party has been fully determined and that death penalty is the only possible way of defend human lives against an unjust oppressor.”
Velasquez clarified that there are now alternatives to the death penalty, among these are reformed correctional facility program, a more competent law enforcement force, and a more robust and impartial justice system.
A fair and impartial justice system as well as an effective and efficient penal and correctional system are much needed than the return of the death penalty, said Velasquez.
Yaokasin, however, does not favor the shoot-to-kill policy because “it will be open to abuse.”
This opinion is shared by Aban, who also said: “Maybe there are other ways of apprehending those that are resisting arrest (such as) conduct more intensive training to the authorities in apprehending someone who is violent.
Aban noted that there has been a thin line between violation of human rights or abuse of authority. “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion,’” he added.
“Death penalty and shoot-to-kill policy in effect will no longer provide room for reformation and forgiveness,” Aban said. (FREEMAN)