Ian Alfredo Magno WITH shirt distinctly raised exposing her upper torso, lower body naked with no decent cover, private part exposed swelling with traces of bleeding--such was the body of a young lady who laid lifeless in a grassy strip, bereft of any dignity any parent would wish for their daughter. Cause of death? ... strangulation using the victim’s own pair of shorts, which was forcibly stripped off her as she struggled to defend herself – in vain. The crime occurred somewhere in Cebu, which I happened to catch up in the late evening news sometime early this month. In fact, these are the sorts of reports which flood the news almost on a daily basis. Hence to an extent, some instantly shrug the thought of it, saying “Di na bago yan.” But such horror does not escape the ire of some who (almost instinctively) blurt out “pu@#ng in%!” or “dapat dyan bitayin” or “dapat death penalty na.” And so it goes.  While riding a taxi, having a haircut or simply over a bottle or two, death penalty is quite a perennial topic of random chitchats. And with the recent pronouncement of the President-elect to resurrect the death penalty, it has yet again sparked diverse reactions from various organizations, renowned personalities, interest groups and even from the friendly neighborhood barber. Among the prominent voices vehemently opposing the death penalty resonate from the Church, and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).  In its statement “On the Abolition of the Death Penalty” (Quezon City, 19 December 2000), practically saying that death penalty is not an effective crime buster, the CHR contended thus: “Despite the enactment of the death penalty law and the execution of seven convicts, more 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.” In understanding death penalty, we must revisit the most Basic Law of the land, the 1987 Constitution.  Section 1 and Section 19, Article III thereof, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, mandates among others that: Section 1 - No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law... Section 19 (1) -  ... Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it...” Restated otherwise, a person may be deprived of his life, so long as the following requisites are attendant: 1) he must have committed a heinous crime, as defined by Congress, and 2) his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt before the regular courts and only after mandatory review by the Supreme Court (due process) What does this tell us? It is telling us that our right to life is not an absolute right. Meaning, the State will preserve your life even if you have committed serious violations but if you “cross the line,” the State will kill you (in a manner sanctioned by law).  It couldn’t be simpler than that. And that “line” is crossed only when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt – and only after mandatory review by the SC – that you have, in truth and in fact, willfully and feloniously, committed a heinous crime (which crime only Congress could define via a legislation to that effect). Meanwhile, in 1993 Republic Act 7659 was signed into law, which specifically enumerated certain heinous crimes for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. Among such heinous crimes are drug pushing, murder, carnapping, kidnap for ransom, kidnap with homicide/rape, qualified rape, robbery with rape, qualified bribery, plunder, treason, qualified piracy, parricide, infanticide, and destructive arson. However, this was repealed in 2006 when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law RA 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. Hence, for almost a decade now, the severest penalty available for hardened criminals has only been reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.  The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), mostly kins of raped and/or massacred loved ones, has since then strongly advocated for the revival of the capital punishment.  In an undated interview, Dante Jimenez, founding chairman of the VACC, said: “Here in our country, we are experiencing an alarming culture of impunity where criminals have become so bold that crimes are committed at an alarming rate – anywhere, anytime even at daytime in public or densely populated areas and – even inside prisons such as the New Bilibid Prisons, where convicts recommit similar illegal activities.” It does not mean, however, that those heinous crimes under RA 7659 are no longer considered heinous. Still, they are heinous crimes. The repeal does not affect the nature or gravity of the crime.  Nonetheless, the effect is upon the penalty. Therefore, it is only the supposed penalty of death that is reduced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as the case may be. To “revive” the death penalty, therefore, Congress must first pass a bill to be eventually signed into law, which would repeal or amend RA 9346. Is this doable? Only Congress could answer that question. However, given the turn of events across the political landscape, a super majority would be more than enough to pass such a bill. To some minds, death penalty is a medieval form of chastisement, which could no longer deter crimes in a modern society such as ours. Yet to the widowed, the orphaned children and to the mothers of ravished and slaughtered daughters whose personas were defiled as worthless flesh for the lust of total strangers, such as the fate of that victim as reported in that late evening news, to them, it is not for deterrence nor recompense, but for a deeply personal and spiritual justice--a matter, they say, CHR would not genuinely understand until one day they’d realize it was their daughter in the news. (Ian Alfredo T. Magno is a lawyer and is an associate at the Atty. Francis U. Ku and Associates law office. His column appears here every Saturday.)