Death penalty as a form of self-defense

Although the original death penalty bill has been watered down substantially, the administration, by sheer number, has succeeded in having it passed in the second reading last Ash Wednesday. Practically, only drug-related heinous crimes are now punishable by death, it is better than nothing. But those who oppose it will never stop making noises. We are for the passage of this piece of vital legislation.

Under the principle of self-defense, any person is licensed to kill an illegal aggressor, if and when his life is in grave and imminent danger by the unlawful act of another. There are three elements that must all be present before one is allowed to kill. First, there must be an unlawful aggression in a manner that puts one's life on the brink of destruction. Second, there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. And third, the means used by the defender against the aggressor is reasonable and commensurate with the degree of risk or danger.

Based on these premises, we submit that the State has the perfect right to defend itself against the drug lords, drug pushers and drug addicts who are putting the peoples' lives in constant and grave danger. The murders, homicides, parricides and infanticides, rapes, arsons, and kidnappings, robberies, and grave threats committed by those who are linked to drugs, do constitute a series of unlawful aggressions. The State, including the people and the government have not provoked these aggressors at all. And death penalty, after due process, after conviction based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, is a reasonable means to repel the criminal's aggression.

The State cannot stand idly, while innocent children are being raped, murdered and kidnapped. The government cannot fold its hands while the whole country is being attacked by lawless elements who are under the influence of prohibited drugs. The people cannot just remain blind and deaf to the compelling imperatives of the times. At least, we have a president who is taking a strong and uncompromising stand against drugs. President Cory did not. FVR did not. Erap did not. Neither did GMA nor PNoy. Now that a president is even willing to lose his life, his honor, and his presidency, we need to support his crusade.

To oppose the death penalty and not to offer another option to address this social malady is virtually to endorse drug addiction. We respect the Church in opposing the death penalty based on doctrinal considerations. But if the Church is concerned with national interests, if the Church leaders have a heart for the people who have suffered a lot, let the ecclesiastic authorities propose another viable solution. If they have no alternative, then let them render unto Caesar the matters that belong to Caesar. Let them give the State a chance to do its duty, and let them stop obstructionism at these perilous times in our history.

[email protected].