Such action by the Filipinos would not have been warranted by a
solitary instance of unjust execution under stress of political
excitement that did not indicate the existence of a settled
policy. Such instances are rather to be classed among the mistakes
to which governments as well as individuals are liable. Yet even such
a mistake may be avoided by certain precautions which experience has
suggested, and the nation that disregards these precautions is justly
open to criticism.

Our present Philippine government guarantees to its citizens as
fundamental rights, that no person shall be held to answer for a
capital crime unless on an indictment, nor may he be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law. The accused must have
a speedy, public and impartial trial, be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation, be confronted with the witnesses against him,
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have
the assistance of counsel for his defense. Not one of these safeguards
protected Doctor Rizal except that he had an "open trial," if that name
may be given to a courtroom filled with his enemies openly clamoring
for his death without rebuke from the court. Even the presumption of
innocence till guilt was established was denied him. These precautions
have been considered necessary for every criminal trial, but the
framers of the American Constitution, fearful lest popular prejudice
some day might cause injustice to those advocating unpopular ideals,
prohibited the irremediable penalty of death upon a charge of treason
except where the testimony of two reliable witnesses established some
overt act, inference not being admissible as evidence.