Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Sino ang tunay na baliw? A 4-point reply to Antonio Contreras' comment on Agot Isidro's critique of Pres. Duterte

In her Facebook post, actress Agot Isidro called Pres. Duterte a psychopath for starting word wars with other word leaders, endangering the economy of the country, which may result in the poverty of our 100 million citizens. Here is my translation:
First, no one is quarreling with you. As a matter of fact, you are the one who starts the fights. Second, our country where you were voted by 16 million out of 100+ million people is a Third World. You speak as if Philippines is a superpower. Excuse me, we do not wish to go hungry. Do it alone; do not involve us. Majority barely even have food to eat, and you would make them even hungrier. Third, I know a psychiatrist. Get yourself checked. You are not a bipolar. You are a psychopath.

In defense of Pres. Duterte, Antonio Contreras, a political scientist from DLSU, bashed Agot Isidro in his Facebook post:

 Let us analyze Antonio Contreras words:

1. Agot Isidro should be ashamed of herself. What she said is precisely what happens when you become mendicant. You think heavens will fall and we will all get hungry just because the US and the EU are pissed off.

Would Contreras also say the same thing to Duterte--that Duterte be ashamed of himself?  Look, Isidro had not used cuss words, like P...Ina Mo or Go to Hell, to the world leaders, as Duterte has done many, many, many times, except to his Communist cliques like China and NPA. The image of Justice as a blindfolded woman holding the scales should help us weigh the gravity of the words of Isidro compared with those of Duterte. Whose words have greater weight in shamelessness?

A mendicant is a beggar. They can be the street beggars or they can be those who made a vow of poverty by renouncing personal property, just like the Mendicant Orders such as Franciscans and Dominicans:
Mendicant, member of any of several Roman Catholic religious orders who assumes a vow of poverty and supports himself or herself by work and charitable contributions. The mendicant orders surviving today are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians (Augustinian Hermits), Carmelites, Trinitarians, Mercedarians, Servites, Minims, Hospitalers of St. John of God, and the Teutonic Order. The two great founders of the orders of mendicant friars were St. Dominic, who founded the Dominican order in 1216, and St. Francis of Assisi, who founded the Franciscan order in 1210. Within a generation of their deaths, their institutes had spread throughout Europe and into Asia, (Britannica)
As we can see, not all mendicants live a shameful lives. If we are Christians, we also beg God for our daily sustenance praying the following words from Our Father: "Give us this day our daily bread." And many of us are also mendicants in other ways by begging for help, for love, for attention, or for publicity. We are all beggars in one way or another.

Regarding EU, US, and all those who comprise the West (or the First World in Cold War terminology), it may be worth pondering the following statistics regarding the numbers of OFWs from the top 10 countries and their remittances. Notice that the US alone has 3.4 million OFWs sending PhP 463 billion in remittances which is equivalent to 3.58 % of our Nominal Gross Domestic Product. On a per capita (or per person) basis, those in the US send a remittance of Php 135,000 per OFW, which is equal to our GDP per capita. If we divide this Php 135,000 by 12 months, we get Php 11,250/month. Divide this by 22 working days and we get Php 511, which is a bit higher than the daily minimum wage of Php 481 (non-agricultural) and Php 444 (agricultural) in the country as of 2015. If the average Philippine household is 4.6 people, each OFW is in fact feeding 4.6 people including himself. So for the US alone with 3,416,840 OFWs, the number of people that depend on them including themselves would be 3,416,840 x 4.6 = 15,717,464 or about 15.7 million. The number of people who voted for Duterte as President is 16.6 million. So if the US sends all OFWs back to the Philippines, there will be 15.7 million disgruntled Filipinos who can match the numbers of Duterte's supporters. Duterte cannot even control the his supporters and even his own mouth; if the US sends the OFWs all back, Duterte will have 16 million more mouths to shut up. All these is just for the US alone. We haven't even even yet added those OFWs if they also get sent back from Europe.

And with the lessening of OFW remittances. many industries which depend on OFW customers will face hard times, such as the banking and real estate sectors--and even the small restaurants and shops. The collapse of these industries in a short amount of time will create a financial vacuum, resulting to a whirlwind of an unrest which would surprise even the Duterte's Communist friends who are now in power: this unrest would really result in the drafting of the new Constitution and our country will never be the same again. The Philippines may survive the return of OFWs if they come back within 10 to 20 years span, but a sudden influx of 3.6 million OFWs resulting to the financial difficulties of their 15 million family members within a year is a terrible financial strain on the economy, which would be comparable to the 13.6 million Syrian refugees looking for food, shelter, and work:
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 4.8 million have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, and 6.6 million are internally displaced within Syria. Meanwhile about one million have requested asylum to Europe. Germany, with more than 300,000 cumulated applications, and Sweden with 100,000, are EU’s top receiving countries. (Syrian Refugees)
Agot Isidro is right: if Duterte wishes to go hungry, let him do it himself and fast for 40 days and 40 nights like Christ, before calling Andanar to follow him. Let Pres. Duterte involve us not in his madness. We ordinary Filipinos wish to live in peace.

2. Let me educate you Ms. Isidro. International relations is not as simple as you think it is. Countries do not behave like the soap opera characters you play where a bitchiness of one leads to a catfight, or a fistfight. It is not what leaders say that matters. It is what is in their country's best interests.

Yes, international relations is not simple since it is a dynamical system that rely on a multitude of variables. In the movie, Beautiful Mind, John Nash is shown studying the dynamical system between US and Russia:
Some years later, Nash is invited to the Pentagon to crack encrypted enemy telecommunication. Nash can decipher the code mentally, to the astonishment of other decrypters. He considers his regular duties at MIT uninteresting and beneath his talents, so he is pleased to be given a new assignment by his mysterious supervisor, William Parcher (Harris) of the United States Department of Defense. He is to look for patterns in magazines and newspapers in order to thwart a Soviet plot. Nash becomes increasingly obsessive about searching for these hidden patterns and believes he is followed when he delivers his results to a secret mailbox.
But despite this tremendous difficulty, we can still make sense of international relations by thinking of countries as individual beings with bodies, intelligence, and will--as persons, but far greater than any individual person, since they are made up of multitudes of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions. In political science, we call these persons collectively as the body politic:
A body politic is a metaphor in which a nation is considered to be a corporate entity,[2] being likened to a human body. The word "politic" in this phrase is a postpositive adjective; so it is "a body of a politic nature" rather than "a politic of a bodily nature". A body politic comprises all the people in a particular country considered as a single group. The analogy is typically continued by reference to the top of government as the head of state,[3] but may be extended to other anatomical parts, as in political readings of the Aesop's fable, "The Belly and the Members".The first mentioning of the term in print in Europe appears through the works The Book Of The Body Politic by Poet and Court writer Christine de Pizan in 1407 in which she readily admits to borrowing the concept from Plutarch in an letter addressed to the Emperor Trajan without ever mentioning John of Salisbury great and now considered classical work Policraticus[4][5] The metaphor appears in the French language as the corps-├ętat.[6] The metaphor developed in Renaissance times, as the medical knowledge based upon the classical work of Galen was being challenged by new thinkers such as William Harvey. Analogies were made between the supposed causes of disease and disorder and their equivalents in the political field which were considered to be plagues or infections which might be remedied by purges and nostrums.[7]
Now, since countries can be thought of as persons, we can then think of the world as a stage, where each country are represented by actors and actresses. And in this stage, the bitchiness of one actor may really lead to a catfight or a fistfight, but magnified in international scale: a pinch becomes a pincer movement of the cavalry and hair grabs become air assault of of parachuting troops, helicopter gunships, hellfire bombs, ICBM's, and nuclear warheads. Last month, North Korea fired a submarine-launched missile which landed on Japan's territory. And a few days ago, Russia moved its nuclear-capable missiles near the Polish border, because of growing tensions between US and Russia.

In these trying times, what our leaders say matters, because their words get things done, even if these are not in the best interests of the nation. Loose lips sink ships. If the country is like a ship, perhaps like Bapor Tabo in Noli Mi Tangere, then the leader of the country is the captain in charge of controlling the movement of a very small part of the ship: the rudder.  The rudder is shaped like a tongue. And just as the rudder can change the direction of motion of a ship, so can the tongue move the disposition of a person, That is why, if a person like our president cannot control his tongue, he would drive the whole nation to a shipwreck. As St. James said:
It is the same with ships: even though they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes.5 In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions. Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. 6 The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna.7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.b 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. (Jas 3:4-10)
We are moving on political seas plagued with mines. Perhaps, we can trust Pres. Duterte to lead us, just as Frodo and Sam trusted Gollum to guide them in the Dead Marshes. But we must be wary for treachery may be afoot, as is wont with Communists. The end justifies their means. Communists would collaborate with democrats to bring about socialism. And once this is established, they will bring about communism. As Mao Tse Tung wrote:
The People's democratic dictatorship is based on the alliance of the working class, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie, and mainly on the alliance of the workers and the peasants, because these two classes comprise 80 to go per cent of China's population. These two classes are the main force in overthrowing imperialism and the Kuomintang reactionaries. The transition from New Democracy to socialism also depends mainly upon their alliance... 
Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society. 
Pres. Duterte is no fool. There is a method in his apparent madness--or psychosis as Agot Isidro describes it--for Duterte is using Mao Tse Tung's playbook. Duterte said he is not a Communist but only a Socialist. But following Mao Tse Tung's thought, Socialism is just a step towards Communism, which is the ultimate goal.

Even his statements and counter-statements, jokes and half-truths, have an air of consistency in them which we can sum up into one word: China. China is the North Star in Duterte's policy. Duterte may take one step forward and two steps backward, but like a drunk man who knows his home even though he can barely see as he staggers to the left and right, Duterte knows he is going to China and drag the whole Philippine nation with him with threats of violence from his online trolls and fanatic supporters. Duterte believes that the only way to make himself more favorable to China is if he can show his repudiation of traditional Philippine allies like US and EU. Is it not possible to be friends with both China and the West? Duterte may despise Christianity, but surely he would agree with the following words of Christ:
No one can serve two masters.m He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. (Mt 6:24)
Actually, the Communist dictum of Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is just a copycat of Christian life in the first century of Christianity as told in the Acts of the Apostles:
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. 34j There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)
As the Catholic Church grew, this form of life was continued by religious groups, particularly the Mendicant Orders of the Church--Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinians--the much maligned friars (prayle) in Jose Rizal's time:
A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders founded since the twelfth or thirteenth century; the term distinguishes the mendicants' itinerant apostolic character, exercised broadly under the jurisdiction of a superior general, from the older monastic orders' allegiance to a single monastery formalized by their vow of stability. The most significant orders of friars are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians and Carmelites.[1]
So if the Modernist historians hate the friars in the Philippines so much, will they also inflict the same vitriol to the Communists who wish to impose the apostolic life of the friars on all the citizens?

Unlike in Communist countries, apostolic life in the Catholic Church is an act of free will by each individual member and not imposed by the State through the military and bureaucracy. "Freedom!" is what William Wallace cries out in the film, Braveheart. And true freedom to pursue one's vocation in life is what Christianity promises, as long as such way of life is compatible with Christian doctrines. As Christ said:
“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,* and I will give you rest. 29* p Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves.30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” (Mt 11:28-30)
3. You say we are not a superpower? My dear, we may not be but we are strategically located that countries like China and the US would like to have a piece of us. Yes, Ms. Isidro. We have what many want except that we have been so effing loyal to the US even if it treats us badly in many agreements. Its about time we have to tell the US to treat us right since there are others ready and willing to take its place. So before you even try ranting, read first. Okay.

I am glad that Contreras agreed with Isidro that we are not a superpower, even if such a statement is coming from a non-political scientist.  But Contreras deflected the blow by talking about the superpowers like China and US who want a piece of us. Since we are not a superpower, our leader gives a bravado in showing the world that we are a sovereign nation, that we can live without superpowers like US and EU, because we now have new masters to serve: Russia and China. Perhaps, this is the case of going out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The US may have treated us badly in many agreements. Can we not also say it of China? By the way, was it a bilateral agreement that China will build its fortifications on Scarborough Shoal and other islands in the Spratlys claimed by the Philippines? Was it a bilateral agreement that our fishermen cannot anymore go there? In these cases, do you think China treated us well? If someone took a piece of your property and build a wall around it, would you be alarmed and cry "Get out of here!" If the person who took your land is a rich property developer, will you use your Marxist class-struggle analysis to fight for the rights of the working class (proletariat) against the landed elite (bourgeosie)? Now, China has much more land than the Philippines, with a GDP 36.7 times bigger. Can you still use your Marxist analysis here? Oh, yes. Indeed. As our President said just few hours ago:
“Even if we get angry, we’ll just be putting on airs. We can’t beat them. We’ll ask them to allow our fishermen to their traditional fishing grounds in Scarborough,” (Inquirer)
Doesn't this sound familiar? It's from the Bugs Bunny cartoons:
Yosemite Sam: "I'm a Hessian without no aggression. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." (IMDB)
Why are Filipinos loyal to the US, with 92% positive image compared to 7% negative as of 2015 (Pew Research Center)? We may propose several hypotheses:
  • English language. Filipinos only learn Chinese if they study in Catholic schools. But practically all Philippine schools teach English starting from Kindergarten all the way to college. The Filipinos' facility with the English language--even perhaps the beggars in the streets--opens doors to shared cultural understanding, e.g. we watch Hollywood films and NBA games and read English literature and history.
  • OFWs. If Filipinos are to vote with their feet on our political alliances, they would choose the US over China, because as of 2013, we have 3,416,840 OFWs in the US and only 12,500 in China. Even if you add Hong Kong's 131,810, the total is only 144,310. If you divide 3,416,840 by 144,310, you get 23.7 times.  (Wikipedia). 
  • World War II. Filipino and US troops fought the War together in 1941-1945 in recent memory; those who still remembered the Filipino-American War in 1900s would already be dead by now. Filipinos remember Americans as liberators from the Japanese rule, as exemplified by the love shown to Gen. Douglas McArthur, when he landed in Leyte with American troops, fulfilling his promise, "I shall return."
  • Korean War. In 1950-1953, Filipino and US troops fought together again to prevent Communist troops from taking South Korea: "The Philippine Expeditionary Forces to Korea (PEFTOK) (Filipino: Puwersang Expedisyonarya ng Pilipinas sa Korea or PEPK/Hukbong Pinadala ng Pilipinas sa Korea or HPPK) was the Philippine Army contingent of the United Nations forces that fought in the Korean War (1950–1953). The unit arrived in Korea in August 1950. It was composed of 7,500 troops, and was the fifth largest force under the United Nations Command. The PEFTOK took part in the Battle of Yultong and the Battle of Hill Eerie. The unit operated with the United States 1st Cavalry Division, 3rd Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 45th Infantry Division." Fidel V. Ramos, the one who enjoined Duterte to run for presidency and who may now be regretting his decision, was awarded the Military Merit Medal. A hundred and twelve Filipino soldiers died during the Korean war. 
  • US Bases. Because of the presence of US Bases in the Philippines, Filipino troops operated with US military in many drills and wargames. Even after the US Bases were abandoned by the Americans during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, the US and the Philippines still have Visiting Forces Agreements and Joint Exercises in place. While the US Bases were present in the country, China has not encroached on Philippine waters, even if China already declared its Nine Dash Line in 1947.

4. By the way, I am a political scientist. You may want to have a one-on-one with me on political literacy. You badly need it. You seem to be ignorant of the nuances of politics and IR. Don't worry, I will not charge you for consultation. I will do it pro bono for the love of country.

"There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."--Hamlet

The governance of the nation does not fall on the shoulders of political scientists alone. We need different skill sets--lawyers, economists, scientists, engineers, teachers, philosophers, theologians, businessmen, and yes, even actors and atheletes. Otherwise, if all we have is a hammer, we would think of any problem as a nail.

There is a difference between a political theory and applied politics: a theorist may know all the political terms, but he may not be able to run a barangay, build consensus between different stakeholders, administer government projects, or even manage his own household. Just like in Physics, a theorist may talk of 11-dimensional spacetime continuum and the Theory of Everything, but he may not be able to fix a transistor radio, align a laser,  design a computer chip, or find the love of his life.

One of the greatest political thinkers is Aristotle and this is what he wrote regarding the nature and function of the State:
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. (Politics, Book I, Part 2)
It appears that President Duterte despises virtue. When the bishops confronted him with the issue of extrajudicial killings--killings that were done outside the ambient of the law--what did Duterte say?
"....Mga pari ang p***** i**, buwisit. Mga pa moral-moral. Paano ko pigilan iyan? Magpigil ako ngayon? Patay ang Pilipinas,” (ABS-CBN)
Duterte was commenting on the words of Bishop Capalla:
"Everybody that I know is worried about it. From my point of view, I think it's the question of violence, getting it into a spiral and it seems intensifying...Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it and right is right even if nobody is doing it. Our sense of morality, our moral values, our sense of right and wrong is not anymore strict. Our conscience (has) become callous, the end does not justify the means." (ABS-CBN)
But virtue is needed in politics and a student of Political Science must study virtue. As Aristotle wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics:
Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect virtue, we must consider the nature of virtue; for perhaps we shall thus see better the nature of happiness. The true student of politics, too, is thought to have studied virtue above all things; for he wishes to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws. As an example of this we have the lawgivers of the Cretans and the Spartans, and any others of the kind that there may have been. And if this inquiry belongs to political science, clearly the pursuit of it will be in accordance with our original plan. But clearly the virtue we must study is human virtue; for the good we were seeking was human good and the happiness human happiness. By human virtue we mean not that of the body but that of the soul; and happiness also we call an activity of soul. But if this is so, clearly the student of politics must know somehow the facts about soul, as the man who is to heal the eyes or the body as a whole must know about the eyes or the body; and all the more since politics is more prized and better than medicine; but even among doctors the best educated spend much labour on acquiring knowledge of the body. The student of politics, then, must study the soul, and must study it with these objects in view, and do so just to the extent which is sufficient for the questions we are discussing; for further precision is perhaps something more laborious than our purposes require. (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, No. 13)
Thus, a student of Political Science--and more so, a professor of Political Science like Contreras-- should not only discuss political science by itself, but also in relation to human virtue and the soul, which are already the domains of Philosophy and Theology. So let us humble ourselves as students and learn before the feet of the masters like Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, and Augustine. Their services are always pro bono, because their writings are free all over the internet for anyone to read.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

On death penalty and the Catholic Church: A reply to Pres. Rodrigo Duterte

GMA network reported the following words by our president:
Hindi tumalab yung death penalty noon kasi hindi in-impose. One, because of the Catholic church. Second, the bleeding hearts, because only God can kill....
Let's analyze each statement.

1.  Hindi tumalab yung death penalty noon kasi hindi in-impose. 

Translation: "Death penalty was not effective before because it was not imposed." What does the president refer to by "noon" or "before" here? Most likely he is referring to the Philippines of recent history after World War II. The only way we can validate the claim that death penalty was not effective is to make a real study of the crime rate before death penalty was imposed and the crime rate after to see if the executions made a difference. Otherwise, we will just be making decisions not out of data, but on emotions or political expedience.

But there are some difficulties that would be faced in analyzing crime statistics. You have to be very careful in how crime is measured, e.g. is murder the same as theft and rape? Can you quantify the relative magnitudes of these crimes? I tried to do this for the PNP crime data for 2010-2015, but there are other possible normalization schemes. The safe way is not to add them up into a single index, but analyze each crime type on its own and answer the following question:
  • Does the imposition of death penalty for a particular crime type have any effect on the occurrence of such crime?
Since population is growing, we have to make sure that our measurement of crime is per one million people, so that we can compare different years. The numbers for different crime types were tabulated by the Philippine Statistics Authority for 2005-2016. Because the death penalty was only abolished on 2006, we have scant data to make a definite statement on the efficacy of death penalty. We need to have data all the way to the Marcos years, at least since the time after World War II.

2. Because of the Catholic church

If I am not mistaken, what the President is trying to say is that one of the reasons why the death penalty was not imposed was because of Catholic Church's opposition. Perhaps, this is true, when the Catholic Church was still strong enough to topple a dictatorship. But the Catholic Church is now considerably weakened, especially in our top universities claiming to be Catholic, as the passage of the RH law shows us. The Catholic Church, as represented by several bishops, cannot even stop the election of Duterte as president. Like the Bishop of Rome who lost the Papal States to the Republic of Italy, the Catholic Church in the Philippines has already lost much of its population to Protestant Sects and Secularists. The forces of the Culture of Death are now battering against the gates of the Church: abortion, divorce, homosexuality, death penalty, etc. Soon, the Catholic Church in the Philippines shall burn and fall like Gondor, with the passage of the laws of death, unless a help unlooked for comes to its aid. 

But if we go back to history, the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ, received the death penalty. Yet before He died, He promised His apostles that He will send another advocate, the Holy Spirit:
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.j 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,k17 the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.* (Jn 14:15-18)
The Church was born during the Feast of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on Mary and the Apostles. The Catholic Church converted the Roman Empire through the blood of the martyrs and made it abolish death penalty during the time of Emperor Constantine:
Mosaic Law codified many capital crimes. In fact, there is evidence that Jews used many different techniques including stoning, hanging, beheading, crucifixion (copied from the Romans), throwing the criminal from a rock, and sawing asunder. The most infamous execution of history occurred approximately 29 AD with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside Jerusalem. About 300 years later, the Emperor Constantine, after converting to Christianity, abolished crucifixion and other cruel death penalties in the Roman Empire.  (History of Death Penalty)
Regarding Death Penalty, this is what the Catholic Church officially teaches:
 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

3. The bleeding hearts, because only God can kill. 

Humans can be killed by their fellow humans, because man is mortal.  And all of it begun with the killing of Abel by Cain:
What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!11 Now you are banned from the ground* that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.d 12 If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a constant wanderer on the earth. (Gen 4:10-12)
Perhaps, in the phrase "Only God can kill" Pres. Duterte actually means "Only God may kill."

After the Great Flood, God told Noah:
Indeed for your own lifeblood I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from a human being, each one for the blood of another, I will demand an accounting for human life.d6* Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed; For in the image of God have human beings been made.e (Gen 9:5-6)
In other words, the punishment for killing a human being is death. This is echoed in the Books of Leviticus and Numbers:
Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death;h18 whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal, life for a life.i19* Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.j21 Whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution, but whoever takes a human life shall be put to death. 22 You shall have but one rule, for alien and native-born alike.k I, the LORD, am your God. (Lv 24:17-22
You will not pollute the land where you live. For bloodshed pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for the blood shed on it except through the blood of the one who shed it. (Num 35:33
There are many sins which are punishable by death, not just murder. One of them adultery. During the time of Christ, a woman was caught in adultery. The Law of Moses stipulates that the woman must be put to death: "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife,h both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death." (Lv 20:10) But what did Jesus say? "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (Jn 8:7) God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Jesus, the Son of God, perfected the interpretation of the Law: "Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more." (Jn 8:11) This corresponds with what God said in the Old Testament:
Do I find pleasure in the death of the wicked—oracle of the Lord GOD? Do I not rejoice when they turn from their evil way and live? (Ez 18:23)