When a crime is committed norms and values of society are defiled hence punishment is called for to bring back and preserve social order. Different societies have different ways of imposing punishments the most common among them is imprisonment. However some societies opted for drastic forms of punishments like cutting of body parts to execution.

In 1993 Congress restored the Death Penalty Law through R.A. 7659 after it was abolished in 1987. The law prescribes death for heinous crimes specified as murder, rape, drug trafficking, kidnapping, robbery, and parricide to name the most gruesome among the list. The latest execution of Leo Echegaray, a house painter convicted of repeatedly raping his own daughter in September 7. 1994 last February 5 1999 transformed the already controversial law into a phenomenal event that turned the Philippines the center of world attention. What used to be a concern of Congress and law enforcement agencies becomes the interest of all. Issues concerning its constitutionality, its morality, its effect to the social order, the argument on deterrence, retribution, anger, sympathy and forgiveness all flooded the papers from all walks of life. The entire nation feels the heat of the intense exchange of arguments between those who are in favor and against the law. After the execution of Echegaray, the silent majority shares one sentiment and, that is, whether death penalty satisfies the grounds of which it was re-imposed and whether these grounds commensurate to the risk of possibly sacrificing an innocent life. Hence it is important to listen to the arguments presented by different people concerning the following issues:

In the case of R.A. 7659 the following arguments are presented: that punishment by death deters crime or at east gives potential criminals to think twice before committing a crime. The most na�ve but potent argument is an eye for an eye. You owe something you pay back. You owe life; you pay life. On the other side those who question death penalty argues for the review of the law on three grounds: social, it is anti-poor; political, it is not a deterrence; moral, it denigrates the value of human life. However some of these arguments are not supported with substantial facts. In the case of the argument on deterrence, statistical data does not clearly support that death penalty deters the commission of crime. There is no proper analysis justifying its deterrent effect. On the other hand, the argument on poverty is very interesting. This is a particular issue that has not been taken very seriously to directly affect the poor population in many countries. Yet the absence of critical analysis would consequently reduce the argument to mere rhetoric. The issue on morality and denigration of values of life requires in-depth examination. This paper then attempts to provide critical analysis on the effects of death penalty in our society and examines the issues raised by people who are in favor or not in favor of it. It answers the following questions:

1. Is death penalty really a deterrent?
2. Is death penalty related to poverty?
3. Is death penalty a result of denigration of moral standards?

To provide us a good grasp of the re-imposition of death penalty, I think it is very important to examine the developments of the law through the pages of our history. To start with, I consider it very important to present a historical background of the law in order to give us some perspectives that might be helpful in our study.

Focault exhaustively discusses the concept of genealogy (under the influence of Nietszche Genealogy of Morals. He uses Nietszche's critique through the presentation of difference. Sarup describe the method as,

A Nietszhean historian begins with the present and goes backward in time until a difference is located. Then he proceeds forward again tracing the transformation and taking care to preserve the discontinuities as well as the connections.¹

Focault uses the same method. He examines very carefully the historical connections as well as the disconnections in such a way that the difference of the past with the present explodes the rationality of the phenomena. Genealogical analysis preserve the singularity of events turns away the spectacular in favor of the discredited that has been denied a history. It rejects the pursuit of the origin in favor of a conception of historical beginnings as lowly, complex and contingent.²

1. Pre-Hispanic Understanding of Death Penalty

   The recorded notions of death penalty are imbedded in two alleged earlier codes namely, the Code of Maragtas³ and the Code of Kalantiaw⁴. Scholars question the authenticity and originality of these codes. According to one scholar the Code of Maragtas is nothing but an original work of Pedro A. Monteclaro and claims to be nothing more than that.⁵ It was based on written and oral sources then available. The Code of Kalantiaw, or Calantiao is said to be legendary in character. Historians come to the conclusion that there is no present evidence that any Filipino ruler by the name of Kalantiaw ever existed or that the Kalantiaw penal code is older than 1914.⁶ However, I will give the codes a benefit of a doubt on the following grounds. Firstly, the argument on originality pertains to the authenticity of authorship but not on the content of what is written. It does not necessarily follow that because the originality of the codes is questionable, the content of the codes is also questionable. It is possible that with the absence of necessary evidence at present denying or confirming the existence of these legendary heroes, this discussion remains open-ended. Thirdly, it is not farfetched to theorize that a code on death penalty existed because the countries that had economic ties with the pre-Hispanic communities did impose death penalty. The idea itself may have influenced the leaders of different baranggays. Nevertheless doubtful in origin let us examine these codes.

   The Maragtas Code (partial list)⁷

   1. For deliberate refusal to work, the offender shall be arrested in the fields; for failure to plan anything for daily subsistence is the most serious crime and deserves death penalty.
   2. Robbery of any sort shall be punished severely; the fingers of the thief shall be cut-off
      
   3. The children who cannot be supported by their parents shall be killed and thrown into the river
      
   4. If a man has a child by a woman and he runs away from her because he does not want to marry her shall be killed because it is difficult for a woman without a husband to support a child. The village authorities shall look for the man; and when they catch him and he still refuses to marry the mother of his child, he shall be executed before the child of the woman he has abandoned. Father and child shall be buried in the same grave.

   The Code of Kalantiaw (partial list)

   1. You shall not kill; neither shall you steal, neither shall you do harm to the aged lest you incur the danger of death. All those who infringe this order shall be condemned to death by drowning in the river, or being boiled in water
   2. This shall you obey let your debts with headmen be met punctually. He who does not obey shall receive, for the first time, one hundred lashes. If the debt is large, he shall be condemned to thrust his hand into boiling water thrice; the second time he shall be condemned to be beaten to death
   3. Obey this: let no one have women that are very young, nor more than he can support; nor should anyone be given to excessive lust. He who does not comply with, obey and observe this order shall be condemned to swim for three hours; and for the second offense he shall be beaten to death with sharp stones or lacerated with stones.
   4. Observe and obey this: let no one disturb the quiet of the graves. When passing by the caves and tress where they are, give respect to them. He who does not obey this order shall be given to the ants to eat, or beaten with thorns until he dies.
   5. He shall be put to death who kills trees of venerable appearance; who shoots arrows at night at old men and women, who enters the houses of the headmen without permission; who kills the fish called shark, or the streaked cayman (crocodile)

   The law on death penalty prescribed in this partial list of both the Maragtas and the Kalantiaw codes cannot be separated from the historical context of the times. When people live in small communities called the baranggay with only between 10 - 100 families⁸, the social structure of the community is very cohesive, relationship is personal, and rules and obedience to it is therefore assumed to be corrective. Everybody knows each other in the community and probably crimes if remain unhindered is normally resolve by settlements rather than a harsh imposition of death penalty. There may be some instances of execution but this is, I suppose an exemption rather a rule. However, with the absence of evidence, this argument is not conclusive.

2. Death Penalty Under Spain

   The imposition of death penalty during Spanish colonization is the height of racial discrimination. Not a single Spaniard has meted the death penalty law but only those who challenged the established authority.

   In 1587 Magat Salamat, the son of Lakandula, and Augustin de Legazpi, Lakandula's nephew and the chiefs of the neighboring areas of Tondo, Pandacan, Pol, Candaba, Navotas and Bulacan were executed for secretly conspiring to overthrow the Spanish colonizers.⁹ Another incident happened in Pampanga during the famine. The Pampangos sought the help of the Borneans for their plan to enter Manila one dark night to massacre all the Spaniards. Unfortunately, a native woman married to a Spanish soldier betrayed the plan. Many Pampangos were arrested and executed.¹⁰ In Northern Mindanao, Governor Fajardo executed the chieftain of the Manobos named Dabao, after he accepted Fajardo's offer of amnesty. In 1762, Palaris led a revolt of Pangasinan and waged war that last for two years. This rebellion was crushed in 1765 and Palaris was hanged. Apolinario de la Cruz or popularly known as Hermano Pule revolted caught and after a hasty trial was executed and his body was dismembered and exhibited in the town of Tayabas. The execution of local priests Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, in February 17 1872, maliciously charged by the friars gained sympathy among the natives that led to numerous uprisings. However these uprisings unfortunately ended up in the execution of leaders and sympathizers. For instance, the 13 martyrs of Cavite, leaders in Bulacan and Nueva Ecija but the most gruesome and well remembered of all these executions was the execution of Jose Rizal on Dec. 30, 1896.¹¹

   Countless revolutionaries have shed their blood just to attain independence and self-rule but denied of them through excessive force by an illegitimate authority. The Spaniards believed that a brutal execution of leaders will deter others from initiating another challenge to their authority.

3. Death Penalty during the American Period

   The Americans enacted several repressive measures to hasten the suppression of the resistance movement. A Sedition Law was enacted in 1902 punishing anybody who utter seditious words or speeches, write or publish anything against the government of the United States with long imprisonment and stiff fine.

   In November 12 1902, the Brigandage Act, made membership in an armed band, even if proved only by circumstantial evidence, punishable by death or long imprisonment. In accordance with the provisions of this act, Macario Sakay who led the resistance group after the rebellion of Aguinaldo was totally crushed, was sentenced to die by public hanging and his officers to long terms of imprisonment.¹²

   The number of executed Filipinos under the Brigandage act was not known but definitely these are lesser compared to those who died during the Spanish regime. To prevent further challenge to their authority, death penalty is imposed to sow fear and division among the ranks of revolutionaries. In other words, the imposition is established in an unequal grounds: the superiority of the colonizers over the inferiority of the colonized, the inequality among rights and privileges lording it over to the colonizers while depriving the natives of their right even in their own land. Filipinos were forced to accept a lesson among people with unequal standing that to fight a stronger authority is wrong. Death penalty is nothing but a discourse of subjugation over the subjugated, a metaphor of the imposition of power over the powerless. Hence, the argument on deterrence brought about by fear of being executed has been proven wrong. The earlier executions of the nephews of Lakandula in the late 1600 to the death of Sakay in the early 20th century did not deter the Filipinos to fight for their freedom. Thousands of Filipinos were meted the punishment of death not because they were NOT afraid of being executed but because between life and death there is still a much higher value and that is - FREEDOM. The experience of death could have been so fearsome if self-serving but to die is a value when it is done in honor of priceless freedom.

4. Post-Colonial Imposition of Death Penalty

   The revival of the Death Penalty Law in 1993 requires a careful and intensive evaluation. But before anything else let us go back to the social conditions before its imposition. The idea of putting back the penalty of death in the penal code was perpetrated by the unprecedented rise of criminality in the 90's and the government's failure to substantially reduce it. The gruesome rape and brutal murder of Eileen Sarmenta and her companion by the late Calauan Mayor Augusto Sanches echoed new sympathy for death penalty. Rampant kidnappings (especially against the Chinese Filipinos), and execution of kidnap victims when negotiations bungled up won the country the title as the kidnapping capital of Asia. The Chinese community's silent protests created genuine sympathy among the Filipino community. Incestuous rape, rape, robbery, holdups, car theft etc. also became common headlines in newspapers. The streets were no longer safe for the public. People became suspicious with anybody, in jeepneys, buses, sidewalk, while waiting for a ride, in bus terminals, even in comfort rooms. The feeling of danger and insecurity was always around, one fears to be the next victim. Hence when the death penalty was introduced in Congress, the Filipino people find relief and comfort from their daily ordeal hoping that with it crime would indeed be dramatically reduced. The SWS conducted surveys from the year 1991 to 1998 and the following results are as follows:

   July 1991	---------------	59% pro (countryside) Metro Manila (65%)
   December 1992	---------------	64 % pro
   April 1993	---------------	70 % pro (with 1200 respondents with a 3% error margin)
   For kidnapping	---------------	74%
   For rape	---------------	82%
   November 1998	---------------	81 % pro

   But the question remains is penalty by death deters crime?

   1. Deterrence

      Death advocates said that the state had tried every means to abate crimes and it was time to revive the office of the hangman. In the end, majority of the legislators held that the death penalty, as a statement of political will to combat lawlessness, could deter the worst evil doers.¹³ The deterrent effect remains to be seen, they argue, because nobody has been executed yet. However, former colleagues in Congress vigorously attacked the concept of deterrence. Former Senate President Jovito Salonga vigorously criticized the presumption that the institution of death sow fear among those that are contemplating a heinous crime. As far as the records are concerned, the re-imposition does not prove itself to deter any crime to take place. On the contrary, the death penalty law is a ridicule of our justice system because most of those in death row are poor.¹⁴ He implies that conviction to a crime is poverty related because hiring quality lawyers is expensive. On the other hand Rep. Joker Arroyo cited empirical evidence to show that meting out death penalty had not brought down crime incidence. He said

      For 56 years, from 1926 to 1972, 78 convicts had been executed in the country. By contrast since the re-imposition of capital punishment in 1994, from midway through the Ramos administration up to the first 6 months of the Estrada Presidency, more than 800 Filipinos had been sentenced to death for committing heinous crimes. Are we to understand that in a period of 4 years since the death penalty took effect, over 800 had been sentenced to die versus 78 in 56 years? If that is the case then the deterrent purpose of the death penalty law is not working. Mortal punishment has not stopped the commission of heinous crimes.¹⁵

      Sen. Pimentel argues in the same line. Citing statistical data, he argues that death penalty did not crime in the U.S. Using 1976 as the base year, where no prisoners were executed, the national murder rate was 8.8%.¹⁶ As a matter of fact. Rusche and Kirchheimer's great work Punishment and Social Structures provides a number of essential reference points. We must first rid ourselves of the illusion that penality is above all (if not exclusively) a means of reducing crime.¹⁷

      Year		No. of Executions		National Murder Rate (%)
      1976		0		8.8
      1981		1		9.8
      1987		25		8.3
      1993		38		9.5
      1994		31		9
      1995		56		8

      Why does death penalty not deter crime? A closer look at the argument on deterrence unfolds a questionable presumption. It presumes that when a crime is committed it is committed intentionally, willfully and freely. A common belief among death advocates is that when a person, who cautiously reflects the possible consequence of his criminal act, will definitely think twice before committing a crime for fear of being meted with death. However this fear can be avoided. One way of avoiding fear is killing all potential witnesses. If there is no witness, there is no prosecution. Death penalty then will only perpetuate violence and depriving victims of a chance of survival.

      Most crimes are committed in the absence of freedom and intention. According to the report on Citizens Drug Watch Foundation Inc., criminals under the influence of drugs and alcohol commit 85% of all crimes. Sense of right and wrong, sense of fear and retribution, sense of value and dis-value, simply do not work because the person is not in control of himself. Secondly, death penalty does not deter crime when a person sees a value more important than his life. This is very clear among ideologues and those who believe in a noble cause like the NPAs, ABU SAYAFs, MILFs etc. This is also true among family feud. The power of revenge is much more powerful and compelling than the power sobriety and morality. When a brother is murdered or a sister raped, the anger boiling within annihilates all forms of self-control. Even the awareness of a death penalty law could not prevent him from getting even. Our forefathers were not deterred from continuing the revolution even if the colonizers imposed death penalty because they believe in a higher value even at the cost of one's precious life. Hence death penalty conceived as deterrence lacks sound arguments to support with.

   2. Death Penalty and Poverty

      The death penalty also, invariably, hits the poor more than the affluent members of the community.¹⁸ Leo Echegaray's poverty certainly did not improve his chances of acquittal. Reviewing the list of death convicts reveals that as of March, 1998, 105 are farmers, 103 are construction workers (laborers and carpenters, 73 are transport workers (57 of whom are drivers 18 are sales workers 24 are service workers.¹⁹ In short, more than half of the death convicts earned below the monthly minimum wage of P5, 148.00. Rep. Wigberto Tanada on the other hand argues for the re-examination of the death penalty on three grounds: that it is anti-poor, not deterrence to crime and thirdly death penalty denigrates the value of human life.²⁰

      One of the most striking arguments against death penalty is the possible execution of an innocent person. Sen. Pimentel, during his privilege speech, emphatically argues that not all in the death row are guilty of the crimes attributed to them and their common poverty made the trial courts that sentenced them take their rights lightly.²¹ In 1958 3 innocent prisoners were almost executed. Jose Villaroza, Enrique Arejola and Manuel Daet all of Tinambak Camarines Sur were convicted of the cold-bloodied murder of the couple Felix Refugio and Victoria Toy on June 15, 1951. Their death sentences were affirmed by the Supreme Court and execution was set on March 31, 1958. But later on was acquitted because the real murderers confessed to the crime.²²

      Death-row Statistics (based on survey of 243 inmates)
      OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE
      1. Businessmen, managers and highly skilled professionals	------------------------------	9%
      2. Semi-skilled workers	------------------------------	18%
      3. Subsistence farmers and fishermen	------------------------------	15.5%
      4. Policemen and soldiers	------------------------------	7%
      5. Unskilled laborers	------------------------------	33.5%
      6. Unemployed	------------------------------	8.5%
      7. Professional criminals	------------------------------	8.5%

      CRIMES COMMITTED BY DEATH-ROW INMATES (Source: Citizen's Drug Watch Foundation Inc.)
      1. car theft	-----------------------------------------------	3
      2. illegal gun possession	-----------------------------------------------	7
      3. parricide	-----------------------------------------------	10
      4. Drug trafficking	-----------------------------------------------	37
      5. Robbery	-----------------------------------------------	75
      6. Kidnapping	-----------------------------------------------	80
      7. Murder	-----------------------------------------------	187
      8. Rape	-----------------------------------------------	516

      Looking at these data there is indeed a good ground to suspect that criminality cannot be separated from poverty. Indeed, Rep. Tanada has pointed this out earlier. But a sound argument logically requires that the conclusion must be well established by the presentation of evidence. The facts cited do not explain how poverty is indeed related to criminality. The lack of substantial explanation will only reduce a potential argument into mere rhetoric. Hence let us examine the following assumptions.

      Under normal circumstances when a criminal inflicts pain to his victim, he sacrifices higher value like the value of peace of mind, harmony, and freedom (if convicted) over a lower value (possible imprisonment and other consequences brought about by it). On the other hand protection of life is definitely of higher value than destroying it. If so then why do people commit crime? Does criminality have something to do will value formation? If crime involves value formation then who is accountable? Is crime really a choice between value and dis-value? Before I answer the following questions in this section allow me to present Pierre Bourdieu's²³ classification of society into classes, habitus and taste. This classification is very important to give us a clearer picture about the relation between crime and poverty.²⁴

      1. Class and Status

         Weber influences Bourdeiu in his distinction of class and status. Weber talks of class as a statistical construct describing one's market situation. Using Marxists thought, Weber states that classification of social class depends on their relation to production. Hence we have distinctions like capitalists and working class. Bourdieu uses the term dominant class to refer to those who control the mode of production and working class for those who sell their labor. For Bourdieu class and status are not really identical classes. They are related. He defines social class as any grouping of individual sharing similar conditions of existence and their corresponding sets of dispositions. He enumerated some constituent factors of the social class as follows:²⁵

         1. social class as defined by capital with the basic forms:
            1. economic to form the economic capital
            2. cultural to form the cultural capital based on credentials

         2. Also he takes into consideration factors like gender, race ethnicity, place of residence and age. However he treats them as secondary.

         3. Class groupings
            1. Dominant class. The dominant class is subdivided into 3 groups
               • Rich in cultural capital less in economic capital like artists, writers and Univ. professors
               • Rich in both CC and EC like liberal professions (law, medicine) and senior managers
               • Rich in EC but less in CC like business owners, and financiers. These three subclasses struggle for the access of valued resources and position of power in advanced societies.

            2. Middle Class (petite bourgeoisie) also is composed of three categories
               • Primary school teachers
               • Junior executives, clerical personnel, paramedics, those working in the media
               • Small business employees

            3. Working Class they get the lowest volume of total capital assets. They lack EC and CC. They are composed of skilled, semi-skilled, manual workers and farmers.

      2. Class, Habitus and Taste

         These three important constructs are very much related to each other. Habitus can be interpreted as a worldview or an ideology of a particular class. This has shaped ways of understanding, lifestyles and attitudes of a particular class. Even if a family lacks economic capital but abundant in cultural capital, they still buy goods based on their taste and not on their economic capability. Bourdeiu is apprehensive about economists that explain relation of supply and demand based on existing conditions. People choose products because of taste. Taste is a product of a particular habitus that is being internalized and unconsciously working in man. This comes out naturally in different form of behavior, in language and actuations.

         1. Taste of Freedom. The dominant class enjoys freedom because they are not constrained by material needs. Hence the DC (dominant Class) excels in art, stylized and formalized natural functions. Human creativity flourishes as it is nurtured by the convenience from material necessity. For instance in the choice of clothing, the DC chooses with style, the WC (working class) chooses clothes simply for cover of the body. When hungry, the DC just does not eat to fill their hunger but done with ceremonial rituals, or rule of proper table etiquette and socialization. The WC simply eats to satisfy hunger.

         2. Taste of Necessity. The WC confronts the urgencies of material needs of making a living. They privilege substance over form. For instance, WC eats beans not because they cannot afford other food but because they have a taste for what they are anyway condemned.²⁶ There is no essential between eating at home or in restaurants or between eating meat and fish.

            The experience of material constraints is transformed into a distinct habitus. Hence WC consumer behavior is not directly determined by sheer material scarcity. Having millions does not itself make one to live like a millionaire.²⁷ A WC still eats even when he can afford to eat meat. He is still vulgar in his language and spontaneous in expressing himself rather than being concerned about poise and style.

         3. Class Struggle. Bourdeiu claims that the dominant class is the cause of envy among the WC. Their taste and lifestyle, having monopolized both the CC and the EC ranks them higher than the WC that the latter only wants one thing in their life and that is to act like a DC. This is very clearly manifested in terms of faking signature clothes. The lack of economic capital can be supplemented by buying, say, a fake product as long as it is a Giordano shirt. The DC lifestyle serves as positive reference for the WC hence they exercise symbolic power. Stylization of life affirms power over a dominated necessity. Hence they claim to a legitimate authority. As a consequence the relation between these two habitus is one of domination. Dominant class taste is legitimized because they are viewed from charisma and knowledge. The WC acknowledges the superiority of dominant class tastes for freedom.

      3. Class habitus, taste and Death Penalty

         Habitus is a mental or a cognitive structure through which people deal with the world.²⁸ When a person is born he is born to a particular community possessing a particular way of thinking, and behaving which is being determined by a particular set of belief system. He is formed by this system unconsciously. That means a child born as a WC will always inherit the habitus of that class.

         It is very interesting to note that the common crime committed by death convicts is rape, or to be more specific incestuous rape. Of the 800 convicts in the death row, 516 are convicted of rape and this is committed by people with a monthly income of less than P5, 148.00 minimum wage. Why is it so? I am not saying that poor people has the habitus of raping their daughters. But I do believe that there must be some connections between rape and habitus. Incestuous rape is the most gruesome of all the crimes because it is committed against a person whom the rapist has the moral responsibility to protect. It is possible that a person who can afford to rape his own daughter treats his daughter as an object of his sexual satisfaction. There is tremendous emotional distance between father and daughter. I think the lack of intimacy is related to habitus in two ways. Firstly, probably because the father has no more time for his family. He is confronted with the urgencies of finding a living (taste of necessity) just a typical working class that is forever tied up between the priority of quality life and basic form of survival. A poor person goes for survival the most essential. He is only concerned with his responsibility as a provider that even if he wants to share precious time with his children his body will most likely not allow him this luxury. The nature of his job is intensely physical. He would opt seeing them alive than seeing them in pain of hunger even if it entails sacrifice of his fatherly responsibility. Secondly, it is possible that to establish an intimate relation with the kids you have to have a considerable economic capital. For instance going to parks, or watch movies, eating with the kids even in fast food restaurants are considered luxuries to a poor man. Thirdly, I argue that his worldview or the worldview of his class does not prioritize spending time with his family. Probably did the same and that is the role he knows that a father should play in a family. Fourthly, a poor person who lives in a surrounding that nurtures crime rather than protects them from crime.

         In the city, a poor person who earns less than the minimum cannot afford to rent a decent house is forced to squat in government or private lands. A squatter's house is no bigger than a 14-square-meter floor area with everything in there. The bathroom covered only with a curtain riddled with holes, a young woman who changes clothes with nothing to cover her, a father who out of frustration of his poverty got home drank or got invited by friends along the way, all compounded together exposing a poor man to the commission of the heinous crime he cannot imagine he is capable of doing during his sober moments. A rich man, who takes drugs, takes drugs not because of poverty but because of the lack of it or pressures from family, from work, or a failing relation. But a poor man who takes drugs takes drugs for a different reason. Probably he is guilty because he fails to bring his family out of the shackles of poverty. A poor criminal then is a victim of various circumstances, maybe despair, upbringing, environment, hopelessness, and all this are related to his poverty. I suppose it is not only true with rape. It is equally true with the case of robbery, kidnapping, and theft that comprise more than 90% of the crime in the death row. A person in his sound mind does not want to expose himself to the danger of his trade if he has a choice but he risk his life probably because he believes life does not offer him a better choice.

      4. Value Crises, Cultural Capital, Economic Capital and Death Penalty

         According to Bourdieu a poor person who wins a lottery game and becomes a millionaire cannot live the life of the DC simply because his Taste and Habitus are still different from the Taste and Habitus of the WC. Value formation has direct relation with criminality. As I earlier argued a person in his right mind cannot afford to inflict a dis-value on another because by doing so he is at the same time inflicting a dis-value to himself. But the risk of inflicting dis-value to others is more common among poor people for the following reason. Firstly, the environment. A young boy who grows in a family (whose cultural capital and economic capital is low) that does not give priority to balance upbringing (probably not because of insufficient EC but probably of poor CC) will most likely to grow with the same mentality. He then perpetuate the same mistake with his future family.

         In a community of drug addicts and wife-beaters; in the circle of pimps and prostitutes; in the company of best friends who find thrill and excitement in being chased by both police and their victims, by people who does not see a light of hope from the corner of their sub-human conditions all these create in the boy his own habitus of what life is all about. Sometimes value formation is a luxury. It is a luxury for people who have time with their kids because they are free from all other concerns. They have the taste of freedom rather than necessity. `

         In short there is every reason to assume the direct relation between economic capital, cultural capital and value formation. Under general circumstance, a family with considerable economic capital is predisposed to teach their children moral values and right conduct because they are not absorbed with the burden of looking for daily sustenance compared with the WC. Besides they have a choice to build a house that physically nurtures privacy. They too have a choice of the kind of environment they want for their kids. Further, a boy who is brought up in a family that because of poverty does not prioritize value formation will not see the importance of value formation later when he has his own family. Hence the cycle of habitus of taking lightly value formation is perpetuated.

         With the failure of the family and the community to mould the child into a peace-loving citizen, and inculcating well-entrench values of decent living from the encroaches of temptations to do evil, there remains one institution that is expected to supply what is missing in the formation of the child and that is the educational institution. But does the educational institution do its job?

      5. Education and Value Formation

         Access to quality education has direct relation with economic capital. If we are to compare the kind of education provided by different institutions we can easily identify obvious disparity between public and private run schools. The private system demands a lot not only from students but also from teachers especially in terms of motivating them to finish graduate degrees. Students are also expected to maintain certain level of academic competence after rigorous selection process. Interaction too among students is a form of learning. Take for example language proficiency. Students in private schools are most likely to learn it well because it is commonly used in conversations. Probably the same practice is also observed in their individual families. Public institutions being given free by the government, are not particular about selection process except in state colleges and universities that maintain a great tradition like UP. Hence poor families send their children to these schools because tuition in private schools exceptionally high.

         In terms of value formation, private institutions, generally controlled by religious persons, do offer a good program compared to public institution in terms of quality and intensity. What I am driving at is that WC families are deprived of intensive value formation offered in private schools simply because of poverty. What is missing in the family could have been supplemented by education. CHED's deregulation of schools provides substantial independence especially to private schools to raise their tuition fees with very minimum interference from government.²⁹ In related sources, A UP based research estimates that a child will need something like P1.4 million to go up the ladder of quality education that he gets in so called high end institutions from grade 1 to college. It will cost less than P633,000.00 if he enrolls in a low end private schools and considerably much lesser in public schools. These projected figure were computed in the assumption that tution fees would consistently increase by 10% per year.³⁰ Looking at the figures, a poor boy who loses a lot of value formation in his family cannot find any help from educational institutions.

   3. Discourse Analysis of the Morality of the Death Penalty Law

      One of the strongest arguments against the imposition of death penalty is tha argument on morality. The Church has strongly criticized the President for being defienat of the Pope's request to commute Leo Echegaray's to life without parole. Justifying his firm stand the President even quoted St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica,

      When a man sins he falls the dignity of his manhood and falls into the state of beasts and animals. Although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserves his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse that a beast and is more harmful

      In another quotation,

      If a man is dangerous and infectious to the community on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.³¹

      The President was said to be confident in justifying the re-imposition of the death based on his adviser's evaluation of Thomas' work. But St. Thomas morality, though some of his works are still applicable even in our times, has to be contextualized. Society has dramatically changed through times and value systems in the medieval epoch may not really be applicable today. Take the following teachings of Thomas (also in the Summa)

      1. Frequent sexual intercourse would destroy the nerves in the brain
      2. A woman should not be allowed to serve as a witness in courts because of the defect in her reasoning ability ... also evident in children and mentally ill persons.³²

      In the words of Ibana, "Thomas may have some perennial insights that transcend history but some of the examples cited above are simply inapplicable to our country today". Are death advocates really concerned after justice and morality? I think it is very important to go back to history and see for ourselves.

      In curbing criminality, the President is always heard saying that the rule of law must be followed regardless of who is affected. People pressing for the immediate execution of Echegaray are mimicking the same words. However, the Supreme Court decision to stay the execution infuriated them even to the extent of recommending abolition of the Supreme Court. Rep. Defensor even suggested of impeaching the Justices who vote for the stay of the execution. Others even shouted, "Hang the eight Supreme Court Justices" the same people who say that the rule of law should be followed.³³ This tremendous outcry for revenge has totally blackened for our quest of justice. Even a well known columnist lauds the execution Echegaray saying, "finally the law has teeth. Let's grind the evil persons in our society down and defend the innocent"³⁴

      My concern in this particular section , then is to unfold ideologies hidden from these moral assumptions. Oftentimes we are carried by our emotions so that when we are confronted with a sensitive moral issue we allow our reason over ruled. Hence when taking sides, What truly occurs in our judgments? How does moral discourse come about?

      To start with allow me to get some help from George Lakoff. Lakoff says that moral discourses are truly metaphorical. For instance we describe goodness with being upright or being bad as being low. Sentences like upstanding citizens or he is the up and up. That was a low thing to do. He is underhanded. He is a snake in the grass. All these sentences points to the argument that doing evil is therefore moving from a position of morality (uprightness) to a position of immorality (being low)³⁵

      1. Moral Accounting

         The general metaphor of moral accounting is realized in a small number of basic moral schemes: reciprocation, retribution, restitution, revenge, altruism etc. In the idea of reciprocation, if you do something good for me , then I owe you something, I am in your debt. If I do something equally good for you, then I have repaid you and we are even. The books are balanced. The idea of reciprocation then follows two principles. The first principle: Moral action is giving something of positive value; immoral action is giving something of negative value. The second principle: there is a moral imperative to pay one's own debts; the failure to pay one's moral debts is immoral. Hence when you did something good for me, you engaged in the first form of moral action. When I did something equally good for you, I engaged in both forms of moral action. I did something good for you and I paid my debts. Here the two principles act in concert.³⁶ In the case of retribution, moral actions get complicated in the case of negative action. The complications arise because moral accounting is governed by a moral version of the arithmetic of keeping accounts, in which gaining a debit is losing a credit. He explains,

         Suppose I do something to harm you. Then by well being is wealth, I have given you something of negative value. You me something of equal negative value. Bu moral arithmetic, giving something negative is equivalent to taking something positive. By harming you I have taken something of value from you. I placed you in a potential moral dilemma with respect to the first and the second principles of moral accounting. No matter what you do harming me or doing me any good you violate one of the two principles. You have to make a choice. You have to give priority to one of the principles. The morality of absolute goodness should rank first over the principle of retribution.³⁷

         In the debates over the death penalty, morally liberal minded advocates rank absolute goodness over retribution, while conservatives prefer retribution to that of restitution: a life for a life.

      2. Conservative Metaphors of Morality

         Being bad is being low. Being good is being upright. Hence to be upright, one must be strong enough to stand up evil. Morality then is conceptualized as strength - to resist evil. As moral strength it must be cultivated from within through self-discipline and self-denial. As a consequence punishment is good because through hardships moral strength is built. Death penalty in this sense is definitely conceived as a deterrence, that is, refraining from doing harm to others. Punishment becomes good because through hardships moral strength is built. Moral weakness then is viewed as immorality. This explains why advocates of death penalty were so frustrated by the stay of the execution because they view it as a weakness. Lakoff adds,

         The world is divided into good and evil. To remain good in the face of evil (to stand up to evil) one must be morally strong. One becomes morally strong through self-denial. Someone who is morally weak cannot stand up to evil and so will eventually commit evil. Therefore moral weakness is a form of immorality.³⁸

         Those who give a very high priority to moral strength, of course see it as a form of idealism. The metaphor of moral strength sees the world in terms of the war of good against the forces of which must be fought ruthlessly. Ruthless behavior in the name of the good fight is thus seen as justified. No wonder that in the medieval times the Church sees herself justified even during the brutal hangings of heretics. The metaphor of moral strength imposes a strict us-them dichotomy. Evil must be fought. It is behind the view that social programs are immoral and promote evil because they are seen as working against self-discipline and self-reliance. Punishing of offenders by death means that they are forever hindered from leading others astray.

         Lakoff also claims that conservative morality is patterned metaphorically on parental authority, where parents have a young child's best interests at heart and know what is best for the child. Just as the good child obeys his parents, a moral person obeys a moral authority. Immorality is seen as a disease that can spread. Just as parents have a duty to protect their children from disease by keeping them away from diseased people, so parents have a duty to prevent their children from getting in contact with criminals. This probably explains that in Metro Manila, we have higher approval for death penalty because of high incidence of criminality compared to the provinces. This is the reason why Rep. Golez says, "What if it happens to your family".

         Further, Lakoff extends the family metaphor into a Nation-as-Family metaphor. The government has the responsibility of taking care of its citizens just as responsible parents do. Hence morality becomes a political decision. Re-instituting death penalty is a morality that takes the form of political policies. Hence if one commits a crime, the state feels responsible and if lawmaking body (Congress) is dominated by conservatives then most likely we have enormous display of support for a law that forever disallows criminals to inflict harm or to influence others to do harm.

      3. Liberal metaphors of Morality

         For liberals morality is viewed as empathy being understood metaphorically as feeling what another person feels. Morality as empathy is nurturance. People needing help are children needing care; a wayward child is patiently formed to go back to the fold. There is always a possibility for reform. Hence killing a criminal is not nurturance. As nurturance, state must look at penal systems as a rehabilitation, and such rehabilitation is a responsibility. Thus where liberals have empathy even for criminals and thus defend their rights and are against the death penalty, conservative are for death penalty and against decisions which seek guarantee the rights of criminals.

The genealogy of Michel Focault in this study is very helpful to trace back the continuity and discontinuity, similarities and dissimilarities of the reasons and objectives of the imposition of death penalty. Whereas in the pre-Hispanic times, the death penalty was viewed simply as corrective considering the fact that communities at that time were tribal. Each member of the tribe is very important, that to sentence somebody to death is against tribal values of intimacy and mutual dependence. Fear from enemy attacks require interdependence and solidify brotherhood among each other that transform their communities into closely knit and cohesive that death penalty can only be viewed as corrective measure.

Death penalty during the Spanish and American regimes was different. It was motivated by colonizer's fear of massive unrest that could catapult into a highly coordinated rebellion that might lead into a complete overthrow of their authority. Death penalty was imposed publicly and brutally with the hope that fear would prevent a possible altercation with the authorities. However, the argument on deterrence did not work because an illegitimate authority imposed it. Fear from execution is surpassed by higher values of freedom and self-governance. As a matter of fact, death in the hands of the colonizers was heroic and highly emulated by the next generations. Connivance with them is betrayal and abhorred.

In the post-colonial period death penalty has some resemblances with the Spanish and the American period in the sense that the argument on deterrence still reverberates once again. On the other hand it is also very different not only because legitimate authority imposes it but more importantly, this discussion becomes battleground were the liberals and conservatives fought. Its imposition reflects that our morality is generally conservative in character. Our religiosity probably is responsible in the formation of this particular habitus. Hence it is also very different from the pre-colonial times because the idea of correction is totally missing. Whereas tribal communities were so close, this closeness is absent in a bigger community whose laws encompasses all "tribes" with a population of 70 million. Relationship is very impersonal and functional. Hence analysis of death penalty in contemporary times becomes very difficult. It has to take into considerations different social classes and their worldview. It is at this point that Bourdeiu's description of class, habitus and taste is very important in order to deepen our understanding of the sub issues that are hiding the main issue. In his creative and ingenious presentation, we see that death penalty is indeed related to poverty. The physical environment, the perpetuation of a particular habitus from a generation of working class families, the inaccessibility of quality education due to excessive tuition fees, all these imprisons the poor man from an environment that is conducive to breeding new sets of criminals. Value formation is so weak considering that their quality time is totally absorbed by the necessity to provided the essentials of human existence. Rituals are sacrificed over the essentials of life. This probably explains why poor people comprises 80% (even more) of those dead men walking. This also explains that the case of incestuous rape is alarmingly the most common of all the crimes. The case of Echegaray was among them.

The problem of morality is nothing but a clash of two habitus from two different social classes in constant tug-of-war with each other to get the upper-hand of the war. In other words, the discussion on the death penalty is the battleground where war a war is fought on very unequal grounds - the poor with no symbolic power at all over the rich with all their influence. The habitus of those who considered themselves morally strong against those whom they think are morally weak. Those who implement the law belongs to the so-called morally upright of our society, high in cultural capital and economic capital. Those who are penalized are the poor - poor in both cultural and economic capitals. Hence to the death penalty, I with Sen. Roco that what deters the criminals is not death penalty but the immediate enforcement of the law and fair justice system. I agree with Rep. Tanada, Sen. Pimentel and former Sen. Salonga that death penalty is anti-poor. I believe with the chaplain of UP, Fr. Robert Reyes, who says, that death penalty only perpetuates the cycle of violence. I am wondering why too little is said about our collective responsibility in creating people like Echegaray. We probably had executed him for the wrong reason but it is more unforgivable to realize that we executed him because we have not done our homework very well.