A lawmaker wants the death penalty back — by firing squad, rather than by lethal injection. House Bill No. 11211, filed by Zamboanga City Rep. Khymer Adan T. Olaso, proposes the death penalty for all public officials — from the President down to barangay officials including judges and members of the police and military — who are convicted of graft and corruption, misuse of public funds or plunder.
He specifically wants capital punishment to apply to “all public officials, whether elected or appointed, including officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as well as those serving in constitutional commissions, government-owned and -controlled corporations and other instrumentalities…[and to] members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police.”
Historically, many Filipinos have been executed after being convicted of crimes punishable by death. Some met their end by garrote or hanging, but most died by electric chair, including Julio Guillen, who attempted to assassinate President Manuel Roxas in 1947. In 1970, four men also faced the electric chair for the abduction and rape of actress Maggie de la Riva.
From 1993 to 2000, seven people were executed by lethal injection. Although the 1987 Constitution removed the death penalty, it was reinstated in 1993 — only to be abolished again by a 2006 law that reduced the maximum penalty to life imprisonment. There are six bills in Congress that seek to reinstate capital punishment.
I recall only two official executions by musketry. The most famous took place on Dec. 30, 1896, when Jose Rizal was shot at Bagumbayan. The other was that of Lim Seng, a Chinese national believed to be the last person in the country executed by firing squad. In January 1973, four months after martial law was declared, he was tied to a post and shot by a military squad, having been convicted of trafficking heroin.
Proposals to reinstate the death penalty, especially for corruption, plunder and misuse of public funds likely resonate with a public exasperated by graft. Still, I remain unconvinced that the threat of death post-conviction will deter corruption or the misappropriation of funds.
I have yet to encounter any substantial research backed by data proving that the death penalty deters corruption. Corruption often involves bribery, embezzlement, misuse of authority, nepotism, fraud, and collusion — acts that happen behind closed doors. For a punishment to deter a crime, offenders must believe they can be caught, and that the outcome (in this case, death by firing squad) is not worth the risk.
However, in places where corruption is pervasive, the fear of being caught is minimal because oversight institutions tend to be weak or the judicial system may be compromised. Under those circumstances, even the most severe penalty may fail to serve as a deterrent. Not until we have credibility, transparency and impartiality in the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of corrupt officials will real deterrence emerge.
As far as I know, only China, Vietnam and North Korea enforce death sentences on corrupt officials. In 2007, China executed the former head of its State Food and Drug Administration for accepting bribes to approve substandard medicines. Even so, no conclusive evidence shows that executions meaningfully reduce corruption in those countries.
I understand the popularity of the Olaso proposal in a country where frustration with graft has reached a boiling point. People want to send a strong message that corruption is intolerable. Perhaps for this reason, only a minority may publicly oppose the death penalty. Yet in my view, capital punishment has never effectively deterred heinous crimes, including corruption.
I subscribe to the argument that certainty of punishment is more important than severity. If corrupt officials believe they can elude conviction, then even the prospect of a firing squad loses its effect. Conversely, if there is a high likelihood of being convicted, sentenced and punished, even life imprisonment would suffice as a deterrent.
But this approach works only if our system ensures that life imprisonment prevents officials from continuing to exploit their positions. Punishment must also extend beyond incarceration. Stolen or hidden assets have to be recovered. Accomplices, subordinates, superiors and even the families of those convicted should still be scrutinized to facilitate asset recovery.
Confiscation of illegitimate gains especially those transferred to family members must be a priority. If stolen assets can no longer be recovered, the convicted individual’s or their family’s property should be seized as restitution. They should realize that the family, too, can face the consequences of a corrupt official’s wrongdoing.
Reinstating the death penalty might appear as a quick fix, but it is far from ideal. We should concentrate on fortifying the justice system so that corrupt acts are detected swiftly, effectively and punished consistently. A transparent government is inherently less prone to deep-rooted corruption, and whistleblowers should receive robust protection.
Asset recovery is just as crucial. Congress would do well to pass legislation holding convicted officials liable beyond their personal wealth, extending that liability to spouses, children or other relatives who benefit from illicit funds. If stolen assets are voluntarily surrendered, settlements can be negotiated.
The threat of confiscation and forfeiture of family assets can deliver a stern warning that corruption simply does not pay. Stripping offenders and their families of illicit gains and imposing fines in addition to restitution could prove more meaningful than a high-profile execution that does little to restore stolen wealth.
Ultimately, effective sanctions rely on the willingness of political leaders to lead by example. Even the most robust laws mean nothing if enforced selectively. Governments must demonstrate impartiality by holding everyone to the same standards, and government service must prioritize merit, competence and transparency. Only then can we truly diminish the influence of corruption.
Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council