Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 192 views

    People vs. Echegaray

    Uploaded by

    Vince Leido
    The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order staying the execution of Leo Echegaray which was scheduled for the same day. The Justice Secretary argued this violated the rule of finality of judgments and encroached on the executive's power to grant reprieve. The Supreme Court held that while it loses the power to amend or modify judgments after they become final, it retains jurisdiction to execute and enforce judgments. It also has inherent power to control its processes and orders to ensure they conform to law and justice. Granting the TRO was an exercise of judicial power, not an usurpation of the executive's reprieve power, as the accused still has collateral rights even after conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Echegaray

    Uploaded by

    Vince Leido
    192 views1 page
    The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order staying the execution of Leo Echegaray which was scheduled for the same day. The Justice Secretary argued this violated the rule of finality of judgments and encroached on the executive's power to grant reprieve. The Supreme Court held that while it loses the power to amend or modify judgments after they become final, it retains jurisdiction to execute and enforce judgments. It also has inherent power to control its processes and orders to ensure they conform to law and justice. Granting the TRO was an exercise of judicial power, not an usurpation of the executive's reprieve power, as the accused still has collateral rights even after conviction.

    Original Description:

    Political Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order staying the execution of Leo Echegaray which was scheduled for the same day. The Justice Secretary argued this violated the rule of finality of judgments and encroached on the executive's power to grant reprieve. The Supreme Court held that while it loses the power to amend or modify judgments after they become final, it retains jurisdiction to execute and enforce judgments. It also has inherent power to control its processes and orders to ensure they conform to law and justice. Granting the TRO was an exercise of judicial power, not an usurpation of the executive's reprieve power, as the accused still has collateral rights even after conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    192 views1 page

    People vs. Echegaray

    Uploaded by

    Vince Leido
    The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order staying the execution of Leo Echegaray which was scheduled for the same day. The Justice Secretary argued this violated the rule of finality of judgments and encroached on the executive's power to grant reprieve. The Supreme Court held that while it loses the power to amend or modify judgments after they become final, it retains jurisdiction to execute and enforce judgments. It also has inherent power to control its processes and orders to ensure they conform to law and justice. Granting the TRO was an exercise of judicial power, not an usurpation of the executive's reprieve power, as the accused still has collateral rights even after conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs.

    Echegaray

    Facts: On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO staying the execution of petitioner Leo Echegaray scheduled on that same day.
    The public respondent Justice Secretary assailed the issuance of the TRO arguing that the action of the SC not only violated the
    rule on finality of judgment but also encroached on the power of the executive to grant reprieve.

    Issue: Whether or not the SC, after the decision in the case becomes final and executory, still has jurisdiction over the case

    Held: The finality of judgment does not mean that the SC has lost all its powers or the case. By the finality of the judgment, what
    the SC loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Even after the judgment has become final, the SC retains its
    jurisdiction to execute andenforce it.

    The power to control the execution of the SCs decision is an essential aspect of its jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of
    substantial subtraction for the Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in one SC and in such lower courts as may be
    established by law. The important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of decisions where
    supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the
    litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforeseen, supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the
    inherent and necessary power of control of its processes and orders to make them comform to law and justice.

    The Court also rejected public respondents contention that by granting the TRO, the Court has in effect granted reprieve which
    is an executive function under Sec. 19, Art. VII of the Constitution. In truth, an accused who has been convicted by final
    judgment still possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict
    who becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in a state of insanity. The suspension of such a death
    sentence is indisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not a usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its
    effects are the same as the temporary suspension of the execution of the death convict. In the same vein, it cannot be denied that
    Congress can at any time amend the Death Penalty Law by reducing the penalty of death to lifeimprisonment. The effect of such
    an amendment is like that of commutation of sentence. But the exercise of Congress of its plenary power to amend laws cannot
    be considered as a violation of the power of the President to commute final sentences of conviction. The powers of the Executive,
    the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no
    higher right than the right to life. To contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after his
    final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the 3 branches of the government.

    You might also like