Echegaray vs Secretary Digest

LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE G.R. No. 132601. October 12, 1998 FACTS : On June 25, 1996, petitioner was convicted for the rape of his common law spouse’s ten year old daughter and was sentenced to death penalty. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raising for the first time the constitutionality of RA 7659 “ The Death Penalty Law”, and the imposition of death penalty for the crime of rape. The motions were denied with the court finding no reason to declare it unconstitutional and pronouncing Congress compliant with the requirements for its imposition. Act 8177 was passed amending Art. 8 of the RPC as amended by Sec. 24 of RA 7659. The mode of execution was changed from electrocution to lethal injection. The Secretary of Justice promulgated the rules and regulations to implement R.A 8177 and directed the Director of Bureau of Corrections to prepare the Lethal Injection Manual. Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, injunction and TRO to enjoin the Secretary of Justice and Director of Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the execution, contending that RA 8177 and its implementing rules are unconstitutional and void. The Executive Judge of the RTC of Quezon City and Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 104 were later impleaded to enjoin them from setting a date of execution. On March 3, 1998 , the court required respondents to comment and mandated the parties to mantain status quo . Petitioner filed a very urgent motion to clarify status quo and to request for TRO until resolution of the petition. The Solicitor General filed a comment on the petition dismissing the claim that the RA in question is unconstitutional and providing arguments in support of his contention. CHR filed a motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and appear as Amicus Curiae alleging that the death penalty is cruel and degrading citing applicable provisions and statistics showing how other countries have abolished the death penalty and how some have become abolitionists in practice . Petitioner filed a reply stating that lethal injection is cruel, degrading , inhuman and violative of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

ISSUE : WON R.A. 8117 and its implementing rules are violative of the unconstitutional proscription against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment, violative of international treaty and obligations , discriminatory and an undue delegation of legislative powers. RULING : I. LETHAL INJECTION, NOT CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 19, ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution proscribes the imposition of "cruel, degrading or inhuman" punishment. This is the challenge thrown at RA 8177 and its implementing rules and regulations. The court explains that any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the execution of death penalty and does not fall within the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. "In a limited sense, anything is cruel which is calculated to give pain or distress, and since punishment imports pain or suffering to the convict, it may be said that all punishments are cruel. The Constitution, however, does not mean that crime, for this reason, is to go unpunished." II.REIMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL TREATY OBLIGATIONS Petitioner disputes that the reimposition of the death penalty law violates the International Covenant on Civil And Political Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1996, signed and ratified by the Philippines on December 19, 1966 and October 23, 1986, respectively. Although Article 6 of said covenant highlights an individual’s right to life, it also particularly recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to life, subject to the limitation that it be imposed for the "most serious crimes". The petitioner's assertion of our obligation under the Second Optional Protocol has gone astray since dates and circumstances related to its adoption prove that the Philippines neither signed nor ratified said document. III. THERE IS NO UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN R.A. NO. 8177 TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, BUT SECTION 19 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT R.A. NO. 8177 IS INVALID. The separation of power is a fundamental principle in our system of government and each department has exclusive cognizance of matters placed within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. A consequence of the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of powers. In Latin maxim, the rule is : potestas delegata non delegari potest." (what has been delegated, cannot be

delegated). There are however exceptions to this rule and one of exceptions is “ Delegation to Administrative Bodies “

the recognized

The Secretary of Justice in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections are empowered to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of lethal injection. The reason for delegation of authority to administrative agencies is the increasing complexity of the task of government requiring expertise as well as the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in itself – it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate – and (b) fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Considering the scope and the definiteness of RA 8177, which changed the mode of carrying out the death penalty, the Court finds that the law sufficiently describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. RA 8177 likewise provides the standards which define the legislative policy, mark its limits, map out its boundaries, and specify the public agencies which will apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative purpose may be carried out.