RESEARCH PROPOSAL CAPSULE PAPER
A. BASIC INFORMATION
Research Title: Student’s Opinion on Death Penalty: A qualitative approach
Proponent (s):
Ruaya, Ailyn C.
Perdizo, Miljane P.
Uy, Ellanie C.
Implementing Agency: Saint Paul University Surigao
Lead Agency:
DOJ
School’s Administration
Collaborating Agency: Saint Paul University Surigao
Research Project Duration: November 15, 2019 to December 15, 2019
Project Location: Surigao City
Significance of the Study
The result of the study would contribute to the agencies and branches of the government who
have stand in the issue if Death Penalty, the result of which could give reports about the students
opinions of Saint Paul University Surigao on the concept of the law on Deaht Penalty.
Legislative branch of the government. The result of the study could give reports and information if
death penalty is an effective means of deterring crime a particularly in Philippines. Since the
members of the legislative are the one who will make laws.
Community. The result of the study could give reports and information to the people of community if
Death penalty would be effective means of deterring crimes and will help people to decide if they are
going to support or oppose in the re-imposition of the law on Death Penalty.
Students. The result of the study could give reports and overviews in the study of Death Penalty to
the students to get themselves involves ragarding its effectiveness as a means of deterring heinous
crimes.
Statement of the Problem
With the interview conducted by the researchers among the selected students of St. Paul
University Surigao in the higher years age 18 above, majority of the population disagree about
today’s government attempt of implementing death penalty law. The researchers Carry out
respondents opinion about the said law by asking the questions stated below:
Grand tour Question:
1. In your opinion is Death penalty a better solution for the people to stop committing hideous
crimes?
2. Do you agree about reviving the death penalty law? Why or why not?
Introduction
The practice of Death penalty in the philippines predate recorded history, and only with the
accession of Mrs. Corazon Aquino to presidential office, and the drafting of the new Constitution,
was Death penalty abolished in 1987. The Aquino government was responsible for restoring various
democratic institutions, including the Congress once regulated by Marcos. In 1993, the philippine
government under the Ramos administration reinstated Death penalty through the Republic Act (R.A)
7659. The law argued that certain criminals deserve to die because of their horrendous acts; such
crimes are considered so the evil that killing the perpetrators is only just way to deal with it.
Accordingly, RA 7659 included thirteen classes of crime, but was later expanded to 46 capital
offenses (Arlie Tagayuna, 2004).
The free Legal Assistance Group, 2002, stated that the majority of the prisoners are poor and
barely educated. Sixty percent (60%) of them earned less than the government mandated minimum
wage prior to conviction. 86 had their death sentences confirmed. The Death penalty law allows two
years and six months after the inmate’s sentence is confirmed. The law maintains Death only by lethal
injection.
In relation to the preceding paragraph, despite the enactment of the Death penalty law and the
execution of seven Filipino and one (1) foreign convicts, more heinous crimes have been committed.
From January to October 1999, the reported cases of rape, which is considered as a heinous crime
under the statute, have substantially increased. It pertains that there is somehow infectivity of the law
to suppress or reduce the level of criminality, (Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines,
2007)
The Death penalty in the Philippines was abolished via Republic Act No. 9346, which was
signed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on 24 June 2006. The bill followed a vote held in
Congress earlier that the month which overwhelmingly supported the abolition of the practice. The
penalties of life imprisonment and reclusion perpetual (detention of indefinite lenght, usually for at
least 40-years) replaced the Death Penalty. Critics of Arroyo’s initiative called it political move meant
to placate the Roman Catholic Church, some sectors of which were increasingly vocal in their
opposition to her rule (Sun Star Cebu, 2006).
Thus, this research study aims to determine the student opinions about penalty. This study is a
qualitative research exploring the public opinions about the implementation of death penalty.
Specific, Measurable Objectives
Determine the opinion of the students in higher level of St. Paul University Surigao about the
attempt of government in reviving the death penalty law.
Determine the opinion of students about death penalty as a best solution for the people to stop
committing crimes.
Determined the students perception about the affect death penalty law to the image of the
country
Methodology
It includes research design, participants, instruments, data gathering procedure and data
analysis.
Research design
The researchers employed Struass and Corbin (1999) methodology of grounded theory. This
approach is deemed appropriate because this study aims to carry out students opinion about the
reviving of Death penalty law and about its effectiveness in means of deterring heinous crimes base
on their perception as a student of SPUS.
Participants
The participants of the study were the college students of Saint Paul University Surigao aging
18 to 23 years old. The researcher used purposive sampling to formulate the criteria stated below and
convenient which a researcher simply collects data from 40 selected participants.
Instruments
The researcher used interview guide questions as an instrument in gathering the data. The
researchers gathered information from the students through one on one interview regarding their
views and opinion about the death penalty.
Data Gathering Procedure
Data Analysis
The gathered from the informants were analyzed following Strauss and Corbin (1990) Grounded
theory way of data analysis applying 3 step methodology; open coding, axial coding, and selective
coding. The participants/ informants were coded (P).
Open Coding. The information gathered was divided into meaning units. A meaning is purely
descriptive term that contains specific meaning relevant to the study. Its purpose is to give the
researchers new insights by breaking through standard ways of thingking about or interpreting
phenomena reflected in the data, Strauss and Corbin (1990). Events / actions / interactions are
compared with others for similarities and differences for constant comparison and were grouped
together to form new concepts. The concrete form were broken down into specific properties and
their dimensions to form (5) categories.
Axial coding. The categories in this procedure were interconnected to explore relationship between
them, Strauss and Corbin, (1990). The researchers form a Model for a categories to connect. Model=
Casul condition= Central Phenomena= Context= intervening condition= Strategies= Consequences.
Where, Casual condition are the conditions influences the central phenomena, events, incidents,
happenings. Central phenomena is the central idea or event is related, strategies, for addressing the
phenomenon purposeful and goal oriented, context, the location of events, Intervening condition, are
conditions constrain the strategies that take place within a specific context and consequences as the
outcomes or result from action or interaction result from strategies, Grounded theory (1987).
Selective coding. Is the process by which all categories are unified, selecting “core” category, and
categories that need further explication are filled-in with descriptive detail. The core category
represents the central phenomenon of this study. Strauss and Corbin (1990). Out of the categories,
some points were constructed by the researcher to sum up processed information from open to axial
coding. These points were presented through a form a story line.
Expected Output and Potential Impact/Users
This study
SUBMITTED BY
Name and Signature: Date:
Ruaya, Ailyn C
Perdizo, Miljane P.
Uy, Ellanie C.
Reference: Taguya, Arlie Capital Punishmentin Philippines
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/
The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), 2002, retrieved from:
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu
Commission on /human Rights of the Philippines, January 2007, retrieved from:
http://wwwchr.gov.ph
Sun Star Cebu, 2006.”Arroyo kills death law”
Strauss, A. and Corbin, L, 1990. “Basics of qualitative research’ Retrieved from:
File:///C:/Users/admin/Download/Basics_of_Qualitative_Research_Techniques_and_Pr
ocedures_for_Developing_Grounded_Theory%20(1).pdf
