Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/73
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999
LEO ECHEGARAY, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
PUNO, J.:
For resolution are public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of
the Resolution of this Court dated January 4, 1990 temporarily restraining
the execution of petitioner and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration. It is the submission of public respondents that:
1. The Decision in this case having become final and executory,
its execution enters the exclusive ambit of authority of the
executive authority. The issuance of the TRO may be construed
as trenching on that sphere of executive authority;
2. The issuance of the temporary restraining order . . . creates
dangerous precedent as there will never be an end to litigation
because there is always a possibility that Congress may repeal
a law.
3. Congress had earlier deliberated extensively on the death
penalty bill. To be certain, whatever question may now be
raised on the Death Penalty Law before the present Congress
within the 6-month period given by this Honorable Court had in
all probability been fully debated upon . . .

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/73
4. Under the time honored maxim lex futuro, judex praeterito, the
law looks forward while the judge looks at the past, . . . the
Honorable Court in issuing the TRO has transcended its power
of judicial review.
5. At this moment, certain circumstances/supervening events
transpired to the effect that the repeal or modification of the law
imposing death penalty has become nil, to wit:
a. The public pronouncement of President Estrada that he
will veto any law imposing the death penalty involving
heinous crimes.
b. The resolution of Congressman Golez, et al., that they are
against the repeal of the law;
c. The fact that Senator Roco's resolution to repeal the law
only bears his signature and that of Senator Pimentel.
In their Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, public
respondents attached a copy of House Resolution No. 629 introduced by
Congressman Golez entitled "Resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representative to reject any move to review Republic Act No.
7659 which provided for the re-imposition of death penalty, notifying the
Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive Department of the position of the
House of Representative on this matter, and urging the President to
exhaust all means under the law to immediately implement the death
penalty law." The Resolution was concurred in by one hundred thirteen
(113) congressman.
In their Consolidated Comment, petitioner contends: (1) the stay order. . . is
within the scope of judicial power and duty and does not trench on
executive powers nor on congressional prerogatives; (2) the exercise by
this Court of its power to stay execution was reasonable; (3) the Court did
not lose jurisdiction to address incidental matters involved or arising from
the petition; (4) public respondents are estopped from challenging the
Court's jurisdiction; and (5) there is no certainty that the law on capital
punishment will not be repealed or modified until Congress convenes and
considers all the various resolutions and bills filed before it.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/73

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 73 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC ? G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999 LEO ECHEGARAY,?petitioner,? vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,?ET AL.,?respondents. R E S O L U T I O N ? PUNO,?J.: For resolution are public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court dated January 4, 1990 temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. It is the submission of public respondents that: 1. The Decision in this case having become final and executory, its execution enters the exclusive ambit of authority of the executive authority. The issuance of the TRO may be construed as trenching on that sphere of executive authority; 2. The issuance of the temporary restraining order . . . creates dangerous precedent as there will never be an end to litigation because there is always a possibility that Congress may repeal a law. 3. Congress had earlier deliberated extensively on the death penalty bill. To be certain, whatever question may now be raised on the Death Penalty Law before the present Congress within the 6-month period given by this Honorable Court had in all probability been fully debated upon . . . 4. Under the time honored?maxim lex futuro,?judex praeterito, the law looks forward while the judge looks at the past, . . . the Honorable Court in issuing the TRO has transcended its power of judicial review. 5. At this moment, certain circumstances/supervening events transpired to t ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4