The proponents of Parliamentary Bill 543 argue that capital punishment is vengeful and barbaric, that human justice is fallible, and that rehabilitation rather than retribution should be the dominant objective of the criminal justice system. They view criminals as byproducts of the environment. At committee hearings, representatives of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines endorsed the bill while warning that prisons should be reformed so that imprisonment is not worse than the death penalty. In addition, intensified efforts against factors that encourage delinquency and the division of families should be taken. The bishops argued that God's commandment not to kill is absolute and that the death penalty deprives an individual of the opportunity to restore himself into society through proper amends and reparation. Ministers of the evangelical churches also favored abolition and agreed that the penal system needs reform. If criminals become hardened, it is because of the inhuman treatment they are subjected to both inside and outside the prison walls. The President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines called for further studies on the role of capital punishment before abolishing the death sentence. Considering the subhuman conditions present in penitentiaries, he doubted whether life imprisonment would be a more humane substitute. Furthermore, the public might interpret abolishment as a relaxation or an unwillingness on the part of the Government to impose upon criminal offenders the penalty they deserve. The MInistry of Justice opposed abolition on the grounds that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to the commission of offenses, that society's only response to certain offenses can be death, that contemporary society has not displayed a strong aversion against the death penalty, and that this penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment. Other views are also presented. Footnotes are included.