death penalty in the philippines essay brainly

• Subscribe Now

FAST FACTS: Death penalty in the world and in the Philippines

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

MANILA, Philippines – At least 28,670 persons around the world are facing the death penalty, according to Amnesty International.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty marks October 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty, in an effort to encourage governments around the world to reconsider the use of capital punishment as a means to deter heinous crimes.

Celebrating its 20th year , the 170-organization-strong movement also advocates against the inhumane means and treatments used against people on death row. “The World Day will be dedicated to reflecting on the relationship between the use of the death penalty and torture or other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment,” the group said.

Global statistics

Amnesty International recorded 579 executions in 18 countries last 2021. China continues to be the country with the most executions, estimated to be in the thousands, but exact numbers are kept under lock and key. North Korea and Vietnam’s number of executions are also being hidden.

Belarus, Japan, and the UAE resumed executions last 2021, while India, Qatar, and Taiwan did not have any executions that year. The countries of Sierra Leone, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia have abolished the death penalty. Papua New Guinea abolished it once more – it had done so in 1974, reinstated it in 1991, before abolishing it last January 2022.

Death penalty in the Philippines

Capital punishment in the country dates back to the Spanish colonial era. Figures like national hero Jose Rizal, as well as Filipino Catholic priests Mariano Gomez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GomBurZa), were executed by firing squad and garrote, respectively.

The electric chair was introduced as a method of execution during the period of American colonialization. After gaining independence in 1946, a total of six presidents have had executions during their term, namely: Elpidio Quirino (13), Ramon Magsaysay (6), Carlos Garcia (14), Diosdado Macapagal (2), Ferdinand E. Marcos (32), and Joseph Estrada (7).

The administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo commuted the sentences of at least 1,230 death row inmates on April 15, 2006, a number considered by Amnesty International to be the largest ever. Republic Act 9346 was then signed on June 24, 2006, abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines. Life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua took its place.

Leo Echegaray was the last person to be served the death penalty in the Philippines in 1999 when he was executed via lethal injection. He was convicted for the rape of 10-year-old Rodessa Echegaray

On death row

Despite the lifting of the death penalty in the country, there are Filipinos abroad who are awaiting execution.

The most prominent among the convicted is Mary Jane Veloso, a domestic worker in Indonesia who was arrested and convicted in 2010 for drug trafficking. She was granted a last-minute stay of execution to act as a witness against her human trafficker. She has yet to testify due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the United States Death Penalty Information Center , as of October 2021, there are two Filipinos on death row, awaiting execution: Sonny Enraca for the fatal shooting of an actor in 1999 and Ralph Simon Jeremias also for the fatal shooting of two men in 2009. Two other Filipinos in Abu Dhabi were handed the death sentence for possession and sale of illegal drugs and substances last January 2022.

Administrative moves for reinstatement

Former president Rodrigo Duterte was vocal about wanting to reinstate the death penalty during his term, saying that it is a fitting punishment for heinous crimes. 

Former UN Human Rights commissioner Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein, however, wrote to then-House speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and then-Senate president Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III in 2016, telling them that a state that has signed or acceded to the United Nations Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is not allowed by international law to denounce it or withdraw from it.

“When a State ratifies the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, it guarantees that no one can be executed within its jurisdiction,” he said.

The House of Representatives passed House Bill No. 7814 last March 2021, which allows the presumption of guilt for those involved in illegal drugs. The death penalty is the maximum punishment that can be meted out to sentenced persons.

Public opinion on the death penalty

In a 2018 Social Weather Stations report on public perceptions of the death penalty, less than half of Filipinos demanded the use of the death penalty for serious drug-related crimes.

A study concluded in 2020 by the Commission on Human Rights showed that despite 6 out of 10 Filipinos showing moderate support for the death penalty, 7 out of 10 chose restorative methods of justice when presented with alternative punishments. Only 3 out of 10 Filipinos strongly support the death penalty, the study said. – with reports from Pauline Regalario/Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, human rights, [judgment call] resisting mob mentality for warrantless arrests.

The whistleblower

Philippines joins biggest case vs climate change, tells court ‘polluters must pay’

European Union, UN criticize new Hong Kong security law

South Korea-hosted summit warns of AI risks to democracy

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Exploring the Death Penalty in the Philippines Essay

Is the death penalty truly an effective deterrent to crime? And what are the ramifications of its application in the Philippines ? Join us as we delve into the controversial topic of capital punishment in the Philippines , examining its history, legal implications, and impact on human rights.

The Philippines made history in 1987 when it became the first Asian country in modern times to abolish the death penalty for all crimes. However, in 1993, it was reintroduced for “heinous” crimes due to public fear and frustration at increasing rates of violent crime. Today, there are more than 400 people on Death Row in the Philippines, making it one of the countries with the highest sentencing rates in the world.

Key Takeaways:

• The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987 but reintroduced in 1993 for “heinous” crimes.
• The country has one of the highest sentencing rates in the world, with over 400 people on Death Row.
• Arguments against the death penalty include doubts about its deterrent effect and concerns about fairness in trials.
• Studies have shown that the death penalty does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment.
• The international community opposes the death penalty, and the Philippines risks violating its human rights obligations if it reinstates it.

The Legal and Human Rights Context

In 1987, the Philippines promulgated a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, solidifying its commitment to upholding human rights. This important document established an independent Commission on Human Rights and affirmed the country’s dedication to international human rights norms by acceding to major human rights treaties.

However, the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Philippines raises significant concerns regarding human rights violations. The right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are fundamental human rights principles that must be protected.

There have been troubling allegations of torture and ill-treatment used to extract confessions, which not only violates human rights but also poses a grave risk of judicial error. These practices undermine the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system, casting doubt on the credibility of its outcomes.

Furthermore, public doubts persist regarding the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system as a whole. Disparities in access to justice and the unequal treatment of individuals based on their socio-economic status undermine the principles of equality and fairness under the law.

In upholding human rights in the Philippines , it is crucial to critically assess the impact of the death penalty on both the constitutional framework and the broader human rights landscape of the country.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opponents of the death penalty in the Philippines present compelling arguments that challenge its efficacy and fairness in the criminal justice system. These arguments shed light on the flaws and potential injustices associated with capital punishment.

1. Lack of Deterrence

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that it does not act as a greater deterrent to crime compared to other forms of punishment. Research has shown that the threat of execution does not significantly reduce crime rates. Instead, addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and implementing effective rehabilitation programs have been proven to be more successful in reducing recidivism.

2. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

Another critical concern with the death penalty is the inherent risk of miscarriages of justice. No criminal justice system is immune from errors, and wrongful convictions can and do occur. Once a person is executed, there is no opportunity for exoneration if new evidence or factual errors come to light. This irrevocability magnifies the importance of ensuring fair trials and avoiding irreversible mistakes.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Disadvantaged Sectors

Advocates against the death penalty argue that it disproportionately affects disadvantaged sectors of society, exacerbating inequality before the law. Studies have shown that individuals from marginalized communities, who often lack access to quality legal representation, are more likely to receive harsher sentences, including the death penalty. This systemic bias raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment under the law.

“The death penalty fails to address the root causes of crime and perpetuates a system that disproportionately impacts vulnerable individuals and communities.” – Human Rights Watch

Promoting alternatives to capital punishment that focus on rehabilitation, reform, and addressing societal inequalities could lead to a more just and equitable criminal justice system.

These arguments challenge the effectiveness, fairness, and justice of the death penalty in the Philippines. Considering these concerns is crucial in promoting a criminal justice system that upholds human rights, equality, and the pursuit of genuine justice.

Impact on Crime Levels

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty does not have a significant impact on reducing crime levels or enhancing the security of law-abiding citizens. Numerous studies conducted in various countries have consistently shown that there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty acts as a greater deterrent to criminals than other forms of punishment. Instead, several underlying factors contribute to the root causes of criminal behavior.

The Real Factors Fueling Criminality

Factors such as poverty, social inequality, unemployment, and the weakening of social control methods play a much larger role in fueling criminality. Socioeconomic disparities and lack of access to basic needs often lead individuals towards criminal activities . Addressing these fundamental issues and implementing effective social and economic policies can have a more significant impact on crime reduction and the overall well-being of society.

“The death penalty doesn’t solve the issues of crime; it merely masks the underlying societal problems that need to be addressed.” – Dr. Maria Santos, Criminologist

Statistics on Death Penalty and Crime Rates

Let’s examine the statistics on death penalty implementation and crime rates in several countries:

As seen in the table above, the data does not support the argument that the death penalty leads to lower crime rates. In fact, countries with abolished death penalty have shown low to moderate crime rates, while countries that retain the death penalty exhibit varying levels of crime rates.

The statistics clearly indicate that the death penalty is not a reliable tool for crime prevention. To ensure a safer society, it is crucial to address the root causes of crime and implement comprehensive social and economic reforms that uplift communities and provide opportunities for all individuals.

Concerns about Fair Trials

The rapid rate of death sentences in the Philippines is taking place within a context of public doubts over the equity, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judicial system. There is a perception that those with influence or wealth can enjoy impunity, while those from disadvantaged sectors of society face disadvantage in the criminal justice system. Safeguards to ensure fair trials, including the right to competent legal counsel, are not consistently upheld.

Historical Use of the Death Penalty

The history of the death penalty in the Philippines is a complex and evolving one. Capital punishment has been a part of the country’s criminal justice system during different periods of its history.

Under Spanish rule, the Spanish Codigo Penal of 1848, which was introduced in the Philippines in 1884, included several capital offenses such as treason, piracy, and murder. During this time, the death penalty was carried out through methods such as firing squad and garrote.

Following the introduction of internal self-government in 1934 and full independence in 1946, there were changes in the application of the death penalty. The newly established Philippine government sought to reform the criminal justice system, and discussions on the abolition of the death penalty emerged.

However, in more recent times, the death penalty was reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 for “heinous” crimes, due to public fear and increasing rates of violent crime. Today, the country grapples with a high number of individuals on Death Row and ongoing debates on the efficacy and ethics of capital punishment.

International Human Rights Obligations

The Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2007, which requires countries to abolish the death penalty. Reinstating the death penalty would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law and could result in consequences from foreign trade partners. The international community, including human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, opposes the death penalty.

Current Situation and Government Stance

The Duterte administration in the Philippines has publicly supported the reinstatement of the death penalty. This stance aligns with President Rodrigo Duterte’s tough-on-crime approach, particularly in addressing drug offenses. Currently, the House Committee on Justice is deliberating on bills that propose the reintroduction of capital punishment, specifically through lethal injection.

President Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs” has already resulted in thousands of deaths attributed to both the police and unidentified assailants. With the government’s overwhelming majority in Congress, it is likely that the death penalty bills will gain support and further progress in the legislative process.

“We need to bring back the death penalty to instill fear, to deter, to prevent crime,” President Duterte said during his 2020 State of the Nation Address.

The government’s position on the death penalty reflects its determination to tackle crime effectively and send a strong message about the consequences of engaging in illegal activities . However, this stance has drawn criticism and concerns from human rights advocates, who argue that capital punishment can lead to violations of the right to life and may exacerbate issues of judicial fairness and errors.

As the debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty continues, it is essential to consider the potential impact on human rights, the criminal justice system, and the broader social fabric of the Philippines.

Risks and Impact on Human Rights

Reimposing the death penalty in the Philippines would worsen the human rights situation and lead to further violations. It would perpetuate the government’s “war on drugs” and increase bloodshed. The rights-violating abyss that the country would descend into cannot be overstated.

“The death penalty contradicts the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. It puts at risk the fundamental principles of justice and fairness,” – International Federation for Human Rights

Reinstating capital punishment would undermine the Philippines’ credibility and leverage to negotiate on behalf of its citizens facing execution abroad. The government’s recent withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, coupled with the potential reintroduction of the death penalty, places the country on a dangerous path towards becoming an international human rights pariah.

The death penalty in the Philippines is a complex issue that raises serious questions about human rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Arguments against the death penalty emphasize concerns regarding its efficacy as a deterrent, the potential for wrongful convictions, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. Furthermore, reintroducing the death penalty would violate the country’s international human rights obligations.

The opposition to capital punishment is not confined to the Philippines alone; the international community, including prominent human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, rejects the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Restoring the death penalty would not only damage the Philippines’ standing in the global community but also hinder its ability to advocate for its citizens facing execution abroad.

It is important to consider the government’s stance on the death penalty, particularly in the context of the ongoing “war on drugs” initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte. The administration’s support for capital punishment, combined with the alarming number of extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses, raises concerns about the state of human rights in the country. Reimposing the death penalty would exacerbate these issues and further undermine the Philippines’ credibility as a protector of human rights.

In conclusion, the death penalty in the Philippines should be critically examined in light of its potential ramifications for human rights and the judicial system. The arguments against capital punishment, the opposition from the international community, and the questionable human rights situation within the country all contribute to the conclusion that reinstating the death penalty would be a regressive step that contradicts the principles of justice and human rights.

What is the current status of the death penalty in the Philippines?

What are the main arguments against the death penalty in the philippines, does the death penalty have a significant impact on reducing crime levels, are fair trials guaranteed in the judicial system of the philippines, what is the historical use of the death penalty in the philippines, does the philippines have international human rights obligations regarding the death penalty, what is the government’s stance on the death penalty in the philippines, what are the risks and impact of reinstating the death penalty in the philippines, what is the conclusion regarding the death penalty in the philippines, source links.

• https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/an-argument-against-the-re-imposition-of-the-death-penalty-in-the-philippines-Yy0RFsgW
• https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a99f4.html
• https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/05/death-penalty-danger-philippines

Hello! I'm Wise, a Filipina with a deep love for my country and a passion for sharing its beauty with the world. As a writer, blogger, and videographer, I capture the essence of the Philippines through my eyes, hoping to give foreign visitors a true taste of what makes these islands so special.

From the vibrant streets of Manila to the tranquil beaches of Palawan, my journey is about uncovering the hidden gems and everyday wonders that define the Filipino spirit. My articles and blogs are not just travel guides; they are invitations to explore, to feel, and to fall in love with the Philippines, just as I have.

Through my videos, I strive to bring the sights, sounds, and stories of my homeland to life. Whether it's the local cuisine, the colorful festivals, or the warm smiles of the people, I aim to prepare visitors for an authentic experience.

For those seeking more than just a vacation, the Philippines can be a place of discovery and, perhaps, even love. My goal is to be your guide, not just to the places you'll visit, but to the experiences and connections that await in this beautiful corner of the world. Welcome to the Philippines, through my eyes. Let's explore together!

You may also like

Exploring the Peak Inflation Rate in the Philippines

Top Beautiful Beaches in the Philippines to Visit

Top Insurance Picks in the Philippines

Add comment, cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want Flight, Hotel, and Restaurant Discounts for Your Philippines Trip? Join Below!

Email address:

Buy Me a Coffee

DEATH PENALTY

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere..

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes – sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials – in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception – regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the   crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. • Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances. • The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.

Execution Methods

• Beheading • Electrocution • Hanging • Lethal injection • Shooting

WHERE DO MOST EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA – in that order.

China remained the world’s leading executioner  – but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least  883  excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International’s view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still sentence to death and execute juvenile defendants. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 149 executions of child offenders in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many child offenders as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 99 child offenders since 1990.

Executions per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 657 executions in 20 countries in 2018, down by 5% from 2018 (at least 690 executions). This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in at least a decade.

Death sentences per year

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,307 death sentences in 56 countries in 2019, a slight decrease from the total of 2,531 reported in 2018. At least 26,604 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2019.

HOW MANY DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR?

Death sentences.

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,052 death sentences in 56 countries in 2021, an increase of 39% from the total of 1,477 reported in 2020. At least 28,670 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2021.

Amnesty International recorded at least 579 executions in 18 countries in 2021, up by 20% from 2020 (at least 483 executions). This figure represents the second lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded since at least 2010.

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen. Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 160 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime. Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems. In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory. The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool. The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty doing to abolish the death penalty?

For 40 years, Amnesty has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty’s latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2019, was released in April 2020.

The organisation’s work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in the Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia region; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty by the UN General Assembly; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 106 – more than half the world’s countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

In the Philippines

More than a decade ago, the Philippines recognized that the capital punishment is the ultimate violation of the right to life by abolishing the Republic Act 7659, later ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which further emphasized the cruel and inhuman nature of capital punishment. Since the start of President Duterte’s term in 2016 however, he has sought to reinstate the death penalty, and almost succeeded when the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill in 2017.

Today, we call on the Philippine Senate to reject any and all proposals for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Call on our Senators to recognize that the death penalty fails as a deterrent to any form of crime and contributes to a culture that continually devalues life.

Recorded executions skyrocket to highest figure in five years

The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful and ineffective response to drugs, death penalty myths debunked.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Philippines Moves Closer to Reinstating Death Penalty

By Felipe Villamor

• March 1, 2017

MANILA — The Philippine House of Representatives approved a proposal on Wednesday to reinstate the death penalty, paving the way for capital punishment to be restored more than a decade after it was abolished.

The bill, which would primarily allow drug-related offenses to be punishable by death, reflects President Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign pledge to end crime and corruption.

Since Mr. Duterte took office in June, thousands of people suspected of being drug addicts or pushers have been killed by police officers or vigilantes as part of that pledge .

To become law, the death penalty bill must face a largely symbolic third reading in the House, which is controlled by allies of the president, before going to the Senate, also controlled by people close to Mr. Duterte. The bill would then have to be signed by the president.

House leaders had called for a voice vote on Wednesday, and advocates of reinstating the death penalty drowned out those opposing the measure.

“We lost. The next battleground is the Senate,” said Harry Roque, a lawmaker who voted against the measure.

Another opponent of the bill, Antonio Tinio, suggested that little time had been given to debate about the bill. “It is definitely unacceptable to railroad the passage of the death penalty bill because for burning issues such as this, congressional deliberations are not just for its members alone — they are also for the people,” he said.

Under the proposal, so-called heinous crimes would be punishable by death. Those include some forms of rape and murder, as well as drug offenses including the import, sale, manufacture, delivery and distribution of narcotics.

Drug possession would carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Capital punishment would typically be carried out by hanging, firing squad or lethal injection, according to the bill.

Once the measure reaches the Senate, legislators are expected to await a ruling by the Justice Department on whether it contravenes the country’s commitment to international conventions. But the justice secretary, Vitaliano Aguirre II, is a fraternity brother of Mr. Duterte’s, and he is not expected to oppose the act.

Senator Bam Aquino promised that lawmakers in the upper chamber would debate the bill but acknowledged that blocking it would be difficult.

The proposed law, he said, goes against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , which the country ratified in 1986. The convention prevents parties from carrying out execution as a form of punishment.

“This issue is so serious,” he said. “The debates should not be rushed, so the public can listen to the arguments in the Senate.”

The politically influential Roman Catholic Church, which Mr. Duterte has criticized for opposing his policies, has been at the forefront of the fight against the law.

Bishops said in a letter that was read in all churches last month that they “unequivocally oppose proposals and moves to return the death penalty into the Philippine legal system.”

“We regret that there are strident efforts to restore the death penalty,” the letter said. “Though the crime be heinous, no person is ever beyond redemption, and we have no right ever giving up on any person.”

It continued: “When we condemn violence, we cannot ourselves be its perpetrators, and when we decry murder, we cannot ourselves participate in murder, no matter that it may be accompanied by the trappings of judicial and legal process.”

The government is a party to international conventions against the death penalty, the church said, and has a duty to follow international opinions opposing the law.

Human rights experts denounced the decision by the House of Representatives.

“This is a major step backward for the Philippines,” Carlos H. Conde, a researcher for Human Rights Watch who covers the country. He added, “This further erodes the already horrendous human rights situation in the Philippines.”

The International Drug Policy Consortium , a network of nongovernmental organizations that focus on issues related to drug production, trafficking and use, had called on Congress to oppose the measure.

The consortium also called on lawmakers to ensure proportionate sentencing of drug offenses.

The death penalty was abolished in 1987, but President Fidel Ramos reinstated it in 1993, citing “crime control.” President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo suspended capital punishment in 2006.