He said he believes the commission of heinous crimes continues to happen because criminals know that no matter how “barbaric and demonic" their criminal activities are, they will only be meted with life imprisonment.

"What can congress do to at least minimize or deter the commission of such crimes? Should we restore the death penalty to deter these crimes? Let the debates begin on this. And let the experience of other countries guide us in our decision. I sincerely believe that when the death penalty was in place and the execution of the hardened and god-less criminals by lethal injection gets full media coverage, the commission of heinous crimes decreased," Zubiri argued further citing gruesome news reports on the alarming rise of criminal acts involving kidnapping, robbery, murder and drug-related activities.

"With all these heinous crimes happening, we can only ask why these crimes continue? Why have the perpetrators of these crimes become embolden? It seems that they are not afraid anymore of our laws and our enforcers. To them being caught is simply free board and lodging in our jails. It's not a big deal for them," he stressed.

According to Zubiri, when death penalty was repealed in 2006, the country suffered a major setback in its peace and order efforts and it emboldens criminals to wantonly disregard the rule of law and the dignity of human life.

"This belief has prompted this representation to file SB No. 2383, or an act reimposing the penalty of death on certain heinous crimes, in the hope that once this bill is passed into law, it will deter the commission of these heinous crimes. Let us restore the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. I always say, if you do the crime, you do the time. Now I say, if you do a heinous crime, then you can say goodbye to your time," he explained.

MANILA, Philippines -- Lawmakers Sunday 13 November 2011 gave stern warning to foreign drug traffickers after the House Committee on Dangerous Drugs endorsed for plenary discussions the bill seeking to impose “harshest” penalties against them

Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez and Abante Mindanao Rep. Maximo Rodriguez Jr. cited the need to amend Republic Act 9165 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the country.

“While the intention in passing the law was very clear and noble, there are some sectors of society who believe that this law is not just and equitable,” the lawmakers said.

The brothers, who authored House Bill 4510 that seeks to impose death penalty to foreign nationals who were arrested in the country for drug trafficking, said the Philippines’ drugs law only encourages foreign drug syndicates to operate in the country since the penalty for drug trafficking is only life imprisonment.

“They are now emboldened to establish their drug factories in the Philippines, because if they are arrested and convicted, they only suffer life imprisonment as compared to the penalties that they may suffer in other countries which, in some cases like in China, is death,” the Rodriguezes said.

“There is a need to amend our laws to ensure that foreign nationals caught violating our laws on drugs will also be convicted with the harshest penalties that their national law imposes,” they said.

The death penalty was an appropriate punishment for drug traffickers, he said.

"The death sentence imposed on those who commit severe crimes will remain for as long as it has to be in the name of justice."

"I understand the concern that the death sentence is irreversible with judgment exclusively lying with the judge beyond reasonable doubt. However, there's still an avenue for the convicted person to appeal which include a Royal pardon."

Monday 19 November 2012 - Duterte said those delinquents who deserve death penalty have a debt to pay to society. He said that even though such punishment will not deter some people from committing a crime, at least they will be punished for their unlawful actions.

Duterte added that even though death penalty was abolished, some relatives of the victims of heinous crimes that deserve such punishment often resort to vengeance, which is not good.

"So kanang mga bleeding hearts or humanist dira, pareha ra na. Imo na silang kuryentehan or tadtaron, parehos ra nang pataya (to the bleeding hearts and humanists, it’s the same death. Whether you electrocute them or chop them, they’re still dead)," Duterte said.

"Ayaw mi tagai anang drama ninyo na it's a cruel and unusual punishment kay tanan pamaagi na patyon nimo ang usa ka tao cruel and unusual jud na. Kining mga human rights, sunod-sunod mo anang mga European na against death penalty (Don’t talk to me about how execution methods are cruel and unusual punishments because all ways of killing a person is cruel and unusual. These human rights advocates are merely copycats of Europeans who are against death penalty)," he added.

Monday 9 July 2012 - "The death penalty has been an important part of our criminal justice system for a very long time, similar to the position in a number of other countries. Singaporeans understand that the death penalty has been an effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment for very serious offences, and largely support it. As part of our penal framework, it has contributed to keeping crime and the drug situation under control."

"The government's duty is first and foremost to provide a safe and secure living environment for Singaporeans to bring up their families. We must be constantly vigilant, adapt our law enforcement strategies and deterrence and punishment regime to remain ahead of criminals. We must do what works for us, to achieve our objective of a safe and secure Singapore. The changes announced today will sharpen our tools and introduce more calibration into the legal framework against drug trafficking, and put our system on a stronger footing for the future."

Thursday 15 November 2012 - Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also minister for home affairs, said abolishing hanging would send the wrong signal to potential criminals.

Singapore has unveiled legal amendments that will enable judges to impose life imprisonment on low-level drug couriers and people who commit murder with "no outright intention to kill".

Mandatory execution will be reserved for hardcore murderers and traffickers.

"The mandatory death penalty strengthens this deterrent message," Teo said during a debate in parliament on a bill amending the anti-drugs law to allow judges some discretion under exceptional circumstances.

If Singapore abolished capital punishment as some legislators have advocated, "we would be sending the wrong signal that the risks of drug trafficking into Singapore have now been lowered, that the society is now more accepting of drugs", Teo said.

"They (abolition advocates) have looked at this from the point of view of the drug trafficker who has been apprehended. We also have to look at abolition from the point of view of society and the victims of drugs."

Teo said care must be taken so the reforms will "not open the doors wide" to mitigating factors which would undermine the country's "strict penalty regime and its deterrent value".

Pointing to the death penalty's deterrent effect, he said kidnapping and firearms offences fell sharply after capital punishment was introduced for these crimes.

For drugs, "we know that the mandatory death penalty has a deterrent effect because drug traffickers deliberately try to keep the amounts they carry to below the capital punishment threshold", he said.

Officials have said there are currently about 35 inmates on death row in Singapore, although executions have been suspended since July 2011 as part of a review that led to the proposed new legislation.

From 2004 to 2010, a total of 26 Singaporeans and 12 foreigners were executed, according to government figures.

On 1 November 2007: Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon of Singapore says that when the EU tables the draft resolution, it will be resisted by many countries which have the death penalty on their statutes and which are of the view that this is not a human rights issue but one dealing with law and order.

"Under these circumstances, it is best for the EU not to try to push ahead with their draft," Menon told IPS.

He argued such a resolution will only "sour the atmosphere" in the Third Committee (which will discuss and vote on the resolution before it goes to the General Assembly) and "cause unnecessary divisiveness in the house."

"It is not clear to me what the EU hopes to gain with this resolution. It may give them a sense of moral satisfaction but it is not going to change the positions of countries that maintain that the death penalty serves to deter serious crimes," he added. "This attempt by the EU to impose its values will also be seen in a very poor light by many countries," Menon warned.

He said delegations will recall that the last time the EU tried to foist such a resolution on the Committee was in 1999.

"Delegations may also recall how divisive this experience was. The sponsors of this draft resolution are certainly entitled to their views on the death penalty," Menon added.

Singapore understands and respects the position of countries which oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle, he added.

"That is their prerogative. It appears, however, that these countries are incapable of extending the same courtesy to countries that have chosen to retain the death penalty".

He said: "My delegation would like to remind this committee that capital punishment is not prohibited under international law. Yet it is clear that the sponsors of this draft resolution have decided that there can only be one view on capital punishment, and that only one set of choices should be respected."

For a large number of countries, including Singapore, the application of the death penalty is first and foremost a criminal justice issue, not a human rights issue, he argued.

"It is an important component of the administration of law and our justice system, and is imposed only for the most serious crimes and serves as a deterrent. We have proper legal safeguards in place to prevent any miscarriage of justice."

"Every state has the sovereign right to choose its own political, economic, social and legal systems based on what is in their own best interests," he said.

Sunday 8 April 2012 - AT LEAST two influential members of the House of Representatives renewed calls to re-impose the death penalty at the weekend as Filipinos grapple with daily accounts of murders, kidnappings, robberies, rapes and other heinous crimes.

House Assistant Majority Leader and Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin said the death penalty would discourage criminals from getting aggressive, and Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, a member of the House justice committee, supported the idea.

“The death penalty would be a deterrent to frequent and flagrant acts of heinous crimes and capital offenses,” Datumanong said.

Shanmugam said it was easy for death penalty opponents to focus on the plight of the individual who faced being hanged, but the consequences of getting rid of the death penalty had to be considered.

“You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone. What would your choice be if you were to make that choice?” he asked.

Monday 9 July 2012 - Law Minister K Shanmugam explained that the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply to the most serious form of murder, intentional killing.

Mr Shanmugam warned that offenders who intended to cause the death of their victims ought to be punished with the most severe penalty, and the law ought to provide the most powerful deterrent against such offences.

However, he explained that other categories of murder could be committed with different degrees of intent and under a variety of situations that may not deserve the death penalty.

In such cases, the courts should be given the discretion to order either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

"This change will ensure that our sentencing framework properly balances the various objectives: justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused, and mercy in appropriate cases," Mr Shanmugam said. "This is a matter of judgement and the approach being taken is not without risks, but we believe this is a step we can take."

The minister explained that the changes were a right step to take as Singapore society becomes safer, less violent and more mature, citing the nation's relatively low incidence of homicides, with 16 recorded homicides, or about 0.3 per 100,000 population, in 2011.

Mr Shanmugam told Parliament that once legislation has been put in place, all accused persons who meet the requirements can elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new law.

This will include accused persons in ongoing cases, as well as convicted persons who have already exhausted their appeals and are currently awaiting execution.

"While we have outlined the principle of the changes today, those giving legal advice to the accused persons should carefully study the legislation when it is enacted and properly understand the precise scope of the changes. In the meantime, they should not make any assumptions or give misleading advice," Mr Shanmugam said.

The minister also told Parliament that for firearms offences, the government's conclusion is that such offences are a serious threat against law and order, against which the country must continue to maintain a highly deterrent posture.

The mandatory death penalty will therefore also continue to apply to firearms offences.

Mr Shanmugam stressed that in making the changes, the government seeks to achieve and balance two broad objectives.

The first is to continue taking a strong stance on crime.

"Where many other countries have failed, Singapore has succeeded in keeping the drug menace under control. Singapore's homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, and we believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty has played an important part in this. Our tough approach to crime has resulted in crime rates which are significantly lower than many other major cities," he said.

"Young children can take public transport by themselves. Women can move around the city freely. We have no gun violence, no protection rackets, no drug pushers on the streets, no inner-city ghettoes. Citizens and visitors alike feel safe, in and out of home, at all hours of the day. This is something enjoyed by few cities in the world. This is something we should seek to preserve."

The second is the refinement of Singapore's approach towards sentencing offenders.

Mr Shanmugam warned that Singapore's cardinal objectives remain the same and crime must be deterred and society must be protected against criminals.

"Justice can be tempered with mercy and, where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance," he said.

"How these objectives are achieved and balanced depend on the values and expectations of society, as it evolves and matures. We believe the proposed changes strike the right balance for Singapore today. They will seek to ensure that our criminal justice system continues to provide the framework for a safe and secure Singapore, while meeting the need for fairness and justice in each case."

There are 35 persons awaiting capital punishment; 28 are for drug offences and seven for murder. Draft legislation implementing the changes outlined will be introduced later this year.

''I often receive requests from many countries, be they directly or indirectly [communicated], be they written or not written,'' Dr Yudhoyono said in a televised speech on Thursday 23 June 2011, ''My answer is that law is supreme above everything else. I turn down almost all requests of pardon and acquittal from the death sentence.”

''It is for the sake of justice. Our fellow countrymen get [the] death sentence for heavy crimes, why would we then grant a pardon for foreign nationals?''

Monday 6 February 2012 - Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung is backing an amendment to the Narcotics Act to shorten the appeals process for drug offenders sentenced to death and expedite their executions.

Mr Chalerm, who oversees the government's narcotics suppression drive, said on Monday he was discussing the idea with Achporn Charuchinda, secretary-general of the Office of the Council of State.

His proposal covers drug offenders given the death penalty by the Criminal Court. They will no longer be allowed to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Regions 1-9 but only to the main Court of Appeal. 

If the Appeal Court rules in favour of the lower court’s decision to execute the defendants, a clear time frame will be given for when the sentence is to be carried out, he said.

“In drug cases, when the lower court and the appeal court agree [with the death sentence], the execution date can be scheduled immediately. There will be no need for extensions,” Mr Chalerm said. 

Thursday 22 March 2012 - He said that if the drug convicts were simply jailed, they could deal drugs from behind bars and mingle with other criminals. "Criminal meeting criminal equals arch-criminal. I won't listen to National Human Right Commission or NGOs, because I answer to the country and the public."