The story · written by gpt-6,
The Philippines’ new Constitution stopped courts imposing death sentences in February 1987 and reduced existing death sentences to reclusion perpetua, a prison penalty under the penal code.[1][2] The protection extended to cannabis offences, which had been covered by drug laws allowing death for trafficking.[3] It left Congress a route to restore capital punishment for heinous crimes.[1]
A constitutional protection reached drug defendants
The Constitution took effect when voters ratified it on 2 February.[1][2] The Supreme Court later confirmed that date in De Leon v. Esguerra, a dispute over local officials’ tenure.[2] Its effect began with ratification, although the presidential proclamation announcing the result followed later.[2]
The Bill of Rights prohibited cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment alongside excessive fines.[1] Its death-penalty clause had two practical consequences: courts could no longer impose death under existing laws, and sentences already imposed had to be reduced.[1]
Cannabis offences still carried long prison terms
The drug law had made selling, delivering or giving away prohibited drugs punishable by life imprisonment to death.[3] Cannabis defendants therefore came within the wider constitutional protection against execution.[1][3]
The 1982 amendment separately prescribed six years and one day to twelve years, plus a fine, for possessing or using marijuana.[4] Growing cannabis carried fourteen years and one day to life imprisonment.[4] Those custodial penalties explain why people could still face severe punishment after the constitutional change.[1][4]
The Constitution also required laws to address physical or psychological punishment of prisoners and subhuman detention conditions.[1] Its protections reached the treatment of people in custody as well as the sentence a court could impose.[1]
Congress retained power to bring death sentences back
The constitutional exception allowed Congress to provide for death when compelling reasons involving heinous crimes justified it.[1] The 1993 death-penalty law expressly invoked that clause.[5]
For specified drug offences, its highest quantity band included at least 750 grams of marijuana or fifty grams of marijuana resin or oil.[5] It also introduced lower penalties for smaller quantities, which the Supreme Court later interpreted in People v. Simon.[3][5]
A later statute removed death again
In 2006, Congress again prohibited death sentences and replaced them with the appropriate prison penalty.[6] The two changes sit at different points in the Philippines’ cannabis history: the 1987 Constitution ended the earlier capital regime, and the 2006 Act removed the death provisions Congress had subsequently restored.[1][5][6]
Listed for context. No score change is recorded for Philippines here.
References
- Constitution of the Philippines, 1987Constitutional Commission of the Philippines · 1987 · Article III, sections 12 and 19; Article XVIII, sections 3 and 27archived
- De Leon v. EsguerraSupreme Court of the Philippines · 1987 · G.R. L-78059, 31 August 1987; majority holding on ratification and effectivity on 2 Februaryarchived
- In re: petition for habeas corpus of David Cruz y GonzagaSupreme Court of the Philippines · 2000 · G.R. 137560, 19 January 2000; 2.70 grams, six years and three months served, habeas corpus and release orderarchived
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 179Batasang Pambansa · 1982 · Section 3: marijuana possession/use, six years and one day to twelve years; section 4: cultivationarchived
- Republic Act No. 7659Congress of the Philippines · 1993 · Sections 13 and 17: marijuana and resin quantities, amended offences and lower-quantity penalties; section 28: publication conditionarchived
- Republic Act No. 9346 — prohibition of the death penaltyCongress of the Philippines · 2006 · Sections 1–5; distinguishes reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment; section 3 parole wording applies to reclusion perpetuaarchived
Checked. The date and the event were compared with a source that was read.