Congress of the Philippines

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

Metro Manila

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED,

OTHER SPECIAL 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,

Section 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;

Section 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.”

Section 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title One of Book Two of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Section Three. – Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in the Philippine waters

Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or passengers.

The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.”

Art. 123. Qualified piracy. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;

2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves or;

3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.”

Section 4. There shall be incorporated after Article 211 of the same Code a new article to read as follows:

“Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. – If any public officer is entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.

If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death.”

Section 5. The penalty of death for parricide under Article 246 of the same Code is hereby restored, so that it shall read as follows:

“Art. 246. Parricide. – Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate of illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.”

Section 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 of 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 a price, reward or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other 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.”


“Art. 255. Infanticide. – The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.

If any crime penalized in this Article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.”


“Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.”


“Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been inflicted.

3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.

4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.

5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.”


“Art. 320. Destructive Arson. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:

1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or different occasions.

2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited or not.

3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure.

4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities.

5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.

Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:

1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.

2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive materials.

If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.”


“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.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed if 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.”

Section 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. – Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who

participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.”

Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:

“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. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.

“Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited Drug Users. – 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 or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any form or where such prohibited drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph 1 of this Act are found.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.

Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary.

“Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall

be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any prohibited drug.

“Sec. 8. Possession or Use 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 possess or use any prohibited drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

“Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources 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 shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any other plant which is or may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived.

The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he did not know such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.

If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the maximum of the penalties herein provided shall be imposed upon the offender.”

Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated 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 any regulated drug in the Philippines.

“Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated 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 engage in the manufacture of any regulated drug.

“Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated 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 sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.”

Section 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows:

“Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated drug users. – 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 or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any regulated drugs is used in any form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in every case where a regulated drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.

Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary.”

Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated 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 shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.”

Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. – The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities :

1. 40 grams or more of opium;

2. 40 grams or more of morphine;

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;

4. 40 grams or more of heroin;

5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana;

6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or

8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.

Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and other obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay.

Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or misapplies or fails to account for seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or instruments of the crime as are herein defined shall after conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.”

Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows:

“Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining.”

Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows :

“Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and Employees and Officers and Members of Police Agencies and the Armed Forces, ‘Planting’ of Evidence. – The maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said offenses are government officials, employees or officers, including members of police agencies and the armed forces.

Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of “planting” any dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the

immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided.”

Section 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. – Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.”

Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years.

Reclusion temporal. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.

Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. – The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, it shall be that of the principal penalty.

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. – The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension, and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when the suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Arresto mayor. – The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.

Arresto menor. – The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.

Bond to keep the peace. – The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.”


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.”

Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows :

“Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. – Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.

An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects :

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.

For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

Section 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows :

“Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. – The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution.

If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized at the moment of the execution.

As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the method of carrying out the sentence shall be changed to gas poisoning.

The death sentence shall be carried out not later than one (1) year after the judgment has become final.”


“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.”

Section. 26. All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any part of the provision of this Act shall be held to be unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Section 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. The publication shall not be later than seven (7) days after the approval hereof.

A PARTY-LIST system is any system of proportional representation in which voters choose among parties rather than among candidates. Votes are awarded to parties in proportion to the votes they receive. Most countries in Europe, as well as Russia, South Africa and Israel favor some form of party-list system because it opens up the political process beyond one or two dominating political parties.

A party-list system can help create a healthy democracy, providing a citizens' voice in Congress and in local government. The Philippine party-list system aims to increase the representation, particularly of "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors and enhance transparency and accountability, leading to more efficient government. Political parties are strengthened, encouraging program and platform-based politics instead of weak affiliations between opportunists. This challenges moneyed and patronage politics that have bred corruption and inefficiency, hindering the country's development.

In the Philippines, voters have two votes for their congressional representatives. The first elects a district representative. The second elects a party-list representative. Twenty percent of the 260 seats in the House of Representatives are reserved for party-list. Every 2% of total party-list votes cast gets a seat in the House, with each party allowed only a maximum of three seats.

District representatives act on behalf of their own district, tending to make laws for the good of their constituencies alone e.g. building sheds, basketball courts, etc. Party-list representatives, on the other hand, are national candidates elected by voters countrywide and thus have a broad vision for national good. They are not the "trapos" (traditional politicians) whose party loyalties is superficial and who are chosen for their popularity. They sit in the House for a party that is elected to Congress on the basis of

its electoral platform and thus push their party's programs. They are accountable to the party they represent and can be removed and replaced by it if they violate its principles or programs, as in the case of corruption.

The party-list system is based on Republic Act 7941 which was signed into law on March 3, 1995. In keeping with the call for "new politics", this system reflects the move towards program-based politics focused on competent parties with comprehensive programs rather than on personalities and "trapos".

The Filipino electorate was first introduced to this system during the May 1998 elections. 123 party-list organizations registered but only 13 (with a total of 14 representatives), including Akbayan! and Sanlakas, received 2% of total votes. Of the 80% total voter turnout, only 26% cast their party-list vote. This was expected as the Commission on Elections (Comelec) failed to conduct a comprehensive education campaign. As a result, 38 party-list seats in Congress were not filled.

In 2001, there were 162 party-list organizations which participated in the elections. Eventually, a number were disqualified and only four parties were proclaimed to have won seats in the House. Eventually, eight more were proclaimed to have been elected to Congress, although getting a seat much later, a number only this year, just a few months from the next elections. Comelec reported that 11,434,554 party-list votes were cast, 42% of the total 35,297,479 voters.

Some party-list organizations were: sectoral groups (such as Abanse! Pinay representing women, NFSCFO representing small coconut farmers); people's organizations (ABA representing farmers, peasants and fisherfolk, AKO representing the urban poor); as well as multi-sectoral coalitions (Sanlakas for instance); and political parties (like Akbayan!). In the 2001 elections, only 64 met the 8-point guideline issued by the Supreme Court. The others, big traditional parties like Lakas and NPC, Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc. controlled by Lucio Tan (hardly a "marginalized and underrepresented" sector), actor Richard Gomez' DILG/PNP-related and government-funded Mamamayang Ayaw sa Droga, and the True Marcos Loyalist Association, clearly defeat the spirit and purpose of the party-list system and thus were belatedly disqualified.

In the May 2004 elections, progressive party-list organizations will field local candidates across the country as part of their commitment to improve local governance, strengthen local government units and make them accessible and accountable to the people. They will also support progressive senatorial bets as well as campaign against corrupt and turncoat candidates, those who consistently take anti-people positions on crucial national issues and incompetents or non-performers who personify the worst in traditional politics and are dangers to democracy.

Evolution of the Pork Barrel System in the PhilippinesPosted on January 24, 2014 by Ruben Magan Gamala in UP Forum

42

Since the pork barrel controversy erupted in July of this year the phrase “pork barrel” has been interchangeably used with PDAF

(Priority Development Assistance Fund). What is the pork barrel or PDAF? How did it come to be a sensational issue in Philippine

public governance? Under the pork barrel system, each branch of government (legislative, executive and judiciary) has its own pork

barrel allocation. The latest controversy, however, has centered more on the legislators’ pork barrel.

PDAF Watch defined pork barrel as those funds “allocated to politicians such as congressmen and senators, to be used, based on

their decision, to fund programs, projects in their districts.” According to G. Luis Igaya of the Institute for Popular Democracy, the

pork barrel is a practice of the Congress “to divert national funds into their districts whether it be in the form of public works (such as

highways or bridges), social services (such as education funds or public school buildings) or special projects (such as livelihood

programs or community development projects).” Simply said, the pork barrel is a public fund intended only for public purposes.

Unfortunately, the pork barrel fund has become the center of controversy because of its potential as a source of massive and

wholesale corruption in government agencies.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reported that according to Sen. Panfilo Lacson the pork barrel fund is a “…

big, big mafia or syndicate involving the executive and legislative branches of the government.” This grand conspiracy of executive

and legislative agencies, according to Lacson, has involved various agencies “in circles of kickbacks, corruption, patronage politics,

and wasteful spending.”

How costly is this mafia to the Filipino taxpayers?

In the same PCIJ report, Malou Mangahas also mentioned that Sen. Lacson said that “less than 50 percent actually went to the

programs of work. And more than 50 percent went to the many deep pockets of corruption.” Based on his personal experience,

Lacson said that “the standard commission of a legislator is 20 percent.Depending on the insatiability of the legislator concerned, it

could go as high as 50 percent, that is, for the most greedy really.” The only portions of pork barrel funds that are perfectly legally

applied, according to Lacson, are the taxes and profit due the project contractor which do not go beyond 14 percent. He further

emphasized that in a worst-case scenario, all the taxpayers get are ghost projects because everything else is just paper work.

The legislators’ pork is used for both “soft” and “hard” projects. “Hard” projects refer to infrastructure, while “soft” projects include,

among others, the purchase of school and health supplies, livelihood assistance, scholarships and the like. Under the present pork

barrel system, according to the Lacson experience with “hard” projects,“ at least half goes to the lawmaker” as commission while

“soft” projects are “the worst…. the commission (is) from here to eternity, without limits.” Lacson estimates that only 50 percent of

the legislators’ pork barrel is translated into projects, the good portion of the pork. The recent revelations on the Jeanette Lim-

Napoles transactions with some government agencies confirm this figure is confirmed. In fact, the sharing formula is 50-40-10, in

which 50 percent goes to the legislator against whose PDAF a certain project shall be charged, 40 percent to the JLN-owned bogus

NGOs, and 10 percent to the implementing agency.

History of Pork Barrel

The pork barrel system is a Western practice brought into the Philippine public governance practice by the United States. Chua and

Cruz (VERA Files, 2013) report that in 1823, the US Congress enacted the first appropriation for rivers and harbors for the different

states. However, the practice drew criticisms from opponents who claimed that it was purely political in purpose. Hence, it was

branded as pork barrel legislation. Pork barrel is also present in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. In Denmark, it is called

“election pork” because it represents promises made before an election (Nograles and Lagman).

The pork barrel system is a pre-Civil War practice in the US. Chua and Cruz (2013) mentioned in their report three possible origins

of the pork barrel in the US: (1) the practice of landowners of setting aside a definite portion of pork salted in wooden barrels for their

black slaves; (2) the practice of American farmers of preserving pork in barrels in anticipation of the hardships of winter, when the

pork was shared with their needy neighbors; and (3) that it comes from the old adage, “Bring home the bacon.”

In the Philippines, the pork barrel system was first introduced in 1922 with the passing of the Public Works Act separately from the

General Appropriations Act (GAA). The first pork barrel was legitimized under Public Works Act 3044 which divided public works into

two types: (1) national and other buildings, roads and bridges in provinces, buoys and beacons, necessary mechanical equipment of

lighthouses and (2) police barracks, normal school and other public buildings, certain types of roads and bridges, artesian wells,

wharves, piers, and other shore protection works, cable telegraph and telephone lines. The latter is the forerunner of the infamous

pork barrel. It was under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications. However, before these

could be distributed, prior approval from the joint committee elected by the Senate and the House of Representatives was needed

(Chua and Cruz, 2013).

In 1925, Senate Minority Leader Juan Sumulong spoke before Congress citing the misuse of public funds in the form of pork barrel

appropriations. In 1950 the pork barrel system was stopped, particularly the practice of releasing lump sums for which no projects

were specified. For the first time, the discretion of choosing projects was transferred from the Secretary of Commerce to the

legislators. Subsequently, the law carried the identified projects of the members of Congress “being the representatives of the

people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders.”

The pork barrel system practice was further refined under the public works act. It was intended to fund “community projects” which

were divided into two: “miscellaneous community projects” for congressmen, and “nationwide selected projects” for senators.

Although the pork barrrel system is inevitably associated with “politics” as shown by the quid pro quo or the carrot-and-stick

relationship, it could still be said that during this time the system was functional in terms of the check and balance mechanism

between the legislative and the executive. Interest groups have their space, too, in the administration of government-funded

projects under the system. This went on for some 50 years, although briefly interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1942.

The 1960’s

President Benigno Simeon Aquino III delivers his 2nd State of the Nation Address (SONA) during the joint Senate and House

session of Congress at the Plenary Hall, House of Representatives Complex, Constitution Hills, Quezon City Monday July 25,

2011. In the photo are Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. (Photo by: Robert

Vinas/ Malacanang Photo Bureau).

However, in the mid ‘60s there was a stalemate between the House and the Senate. No pork barrel funds were released. In 1982,

during the Marcos reign, a new item was introduced in the annual General Appropriations Act by the Batasang Pambansa. It was

called National Aid to Local Government Units (NALGUs). Under NALGUs there was the Support for Local Development Projects or

SLDP. This was the closest to the pork barrel system according to journalist Belinda Olivarez Cunanan. Each assemblyman would

get P500,000.00. SLDP could be used both for public works projects (now referred to as hard projects) and soft projects—providing

medicines, fertilizers, fumigants, insecticides, paints, sports equipment, etc. Under the SLDP scheme the assemblyman conveyed

his preferences for projects to the Ministry of Budget and Management (MBM) which had the power to approve projects. MBM then

released the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Government (MLG) which issued checks to the treasurer of the city or district

where the assemblyman’s constituency was located.

During the Marcos reign, the pork barrel took a twist with the abolition of Congress. The sole power and discretion to dispense pork

barrel was lodged only in one person, the President himself. This gave rise to the phenomenon called cronyism. One had to be

within the sphere of power and influence of the then dictator president to enjoy special favors and privileges. According to Miranda

(in Nograles and Lagman), “When former President Ferdinand Marcos governed through martial rule, the problem earned a new

name—cronyism—and reached its height. The other difference is that at that time, the dispenser of pork was concentrated in one

person—Marcos himself—with absolutely no check on any abuse committed. The national tragedy that followed was

unprecedented in the country’s history.”

The Cory Aquino presidency (1986)

When Pres. Corazon Aquino rose to the presidency she restored the pork barrel system. In 1989, it started as a lump sum

appropriation of P480 million and P240 million called the Mindanao Development Fund and the Visayas Development Fund,

respectively. Representatives from these regions were authorized to identify development projects worth P10 million per district.

Luzon representatives soon demanded their share. In 1990, the pork barrel assumed a new name: the Countrywide Development

Fund, or CDF. Starting in 1992, each congressional district across the country was allocated P12.5 million and P18 million for each

senator. Unlike in the past, there was no restriction on the kind of project the district representatives and senators may want to

implement for their respective constituents.

The Ramos presidency (1992)

Elected in 1992, Pres. Ramos was a minority president. His problem was how to muster support from the legislators especially for

the president’s deemed priority bills, or to strengthen the power base of the presidency. The pork barrel was a convenient means to

achieve that purpose. In 1994, however, the constitutionality of the CDF was challenged.

The Supreme Court ruled that the CDF was valid and constitutional. In the case of Philconsa vs. Enriquez et al., Nograles and

Lagman cited the ruling of the Supreme Court thus:

“Under the Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as the “power of the purse” belongs to Congress, subject

only to the veto power of the President. The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations

is lodged in Congress. The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the

appropriation law. It can be detailed and as broad as Congress wants it to be.”

Ramos opened other avenues to strengthen his power base. In 1996, he restored the Public Works Fund, the School Building Fund,

the Congressional Initiative Allocation or CIA, the El Nino Fund, and the Poverty Alleviation Fund.

CIAs as pork barrel version

CIAs were not clearly provided in the GAA. Legislators were allowed to insert certain amounts in the budget of government agencies

(executive) with the approval of the House Speaker and the House Appropriations Committee. Legislators had a hand in directing

the utilization of the CIAs which were mostly incorporated in the budgets of the departments of public works and highways,

education, health, and interior and local government. Monitoring the projects funded by the legislators’ pork barrel was not given due

attention. Only the officials of the departments of finance, budget, the implementing agency and the lawmakers themselves would

know the status of the funds. At one time, CIA was reported to run up to P28 billions.

The birth of PDAF

During his installation as the country’s 13th president then Pres. Erap Estrada was quite emphatic on his stand on the pork barrel

issue. In his inauguration speech (June 30, 1998) he said:

“Government can provide basic services without the extra cost of pork barrel or kickback; roads for work; infrastructure for

productivity; schools for skills; clinics for health; police for safety, and a lean and mean military machine for national defense. This I

promise and I will deliver. … Government cannot afford to give all the youth the complete education promised by the Constitution,

but it would be a crime if any money for education was misspent on inferior textbooks and substandard classrooms built by pork

barrel. … I appeal to the coming Congress to search its conscience for a way to stand behind me, rather than against me, on the

pork barrel issue and find a way to convert pork into tuition subsidies in the public and private schools.”

But during his short-lived two-year stay in power as president, Estrada did not entirely scrap the legislators’ discretionary funds. He

retained the School Building Fund and still allowed the CIAs. But he also instituted his own version of the executive pork barrel fund

called the Lingap para sa Mahirap. He introduced the Rural Development Infrastructure Fund (RUDIF), the same as the Public

Works Fund, but with a P30M allocation for each congressman. However, the sole power to dispense “pork” to the legislators rested

on the Executive. A legislator had to beg for a share of RUDIF—a case of executive supremacy over the legislative. In 1999, the

congressmen lobbied for a share of the huge executive pork barrel, Lingap para sa Mahirap Program Fund. They were able to get a

share equivalent to 2/3 of the Fund. Estrada reintroduced the CDF, but renamed it the Priority Development Assistance Fund

(PDAF). Under PDAF, at least on paper, the congressmen would identify projects from a narrow set of project categories

determined by the Executive.

PDAF during the Arroyo administration

In 2001, with the assumption to the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo after the impeachment of Pres. Estrada, the PDAF was

retained. Again, the constitutionality of CDF was challenged. The Supreme Court in Sarmiento et al. vs. The Treasurer of the

Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 125680 and 126313, September 4, 2001) reaffirmed its previous ruling in 1994 (Philconsa vs. Enriquez)

saying:

“The Countrywide Development Fund attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also a recognition that individual members of

Congress, far more than the President and their congressional colleagues, are likely to be knowledgeable about the needs of their

respective consitituents and the priority to be given each project.”

In 2008, there was an initiative to safeguard and rationalize the use of the pork barrel allocation. Nograles and Lagman cited in their

report Special Provision No. 1 under XLVI on Priority Development Assistance Fund (p. 950 of the GAA for 2008):

1. Use and Release of the Fund. The amount appropriated herein shall be used to fund priority programs and projects under the

Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government, and shall be released directly to the implementing agencies as indicated…”

The list includes projects on education, health, livelihood/CIDSS, rural electrification, water supply, financial assistance, public

works, irrigation, peace and order, housing, forest management, and historical/arts/culture. The Act also provides“…That in the

procurement of common-use supplies, the implementing agencies shall adhere to the price list and the rules and regulations to be

issued by the Government Procurement Policy Board…”

During the Arroyo administration, there were several cases of corruption that had their roots in the misuse and abuse of the pork

barrel fund especially to perpetuate herself in power which rocked her administration on several occasions. Sen. Antonio Trillanes,

for example, expressed his disappointment with the abuse of the pork barrel by the Arroyo administration.

PDAF under the PNoy administration

PNoy kept the PDAF legacy, and even nurtured it. Before Pres. Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated in 2010 was

P10.86B. This figure was doubled (P24.62B) during the first budget allocation of the PNoy presidency in 2011. Despite the

prominent emphasis on the theme of his electoral campaign—“Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap”—until his inauguration as the

15th President whose inaugural speech centered on the theme, “Tungo sa daang matuwid,” the PNoy administration was not spared

from the massive corruption scandal brought about by the glaring abuse of the pork barrel fund. In fact, although the issue started

with the legislators’ pork barrel, the huge lump sum discretionary fund of the President and that of the Vice-President have also

become a major issue that would make the legislators’ pork barrel fund scam pale in comparison.

The recent pork barrel scandal of P10B (the amount involved could be much much more) has rocked the nation and exposed the

extent of the systemic nature of corruption and its various modalities in the various levels of government bureaucracy. The demand

for transparency and accountability was so potent as to draw millions of people to the streets demanding the rechanneling of the

pork barrel allocation or the outright abolition of the pork barrel system. Added to this is the latest scandal involving the

unconstitutional Disbursement Acceleration Fund (DAF). With the ongoing government investigation and the progress of the plunder

cases already filed against the initial list of accused legislators, every Filipino hopes for the restoration of transparency,

accountability, decency, and rationalized use of peoples’ money as pillars in public governance and to breathe more life and

meaning to the Constitutional provision that a “Public office is a public trust.”

——————–Prof. Ruben M. Gamala is a faculty member at the UPV College of Management and director of the Office of Student

Affairs. He earned his Master of Management from UP Los Baños and is currently pursuing his doctoral studies in public

administration at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance. Email him at [email protected].

Documents

Congress of the Philippines