Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Echegaray Case Digested
Echegaray Case Digested
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
FACTS:
The DOJ, through the Department of Justice, filed an Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration on the January 4, 1999 issuance of the Supreme Court of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray.
The DOJ, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that the Court no
longer has the authority to grant the TRO because:
1.
That the Court lost its jurisdiction the moment it rendered its judgment
that is already final and executory;
2.
That it is encroaching on the powers specifically vested by the Supreme
Court to the executive department in granting the TRO;
3.
That the purpose sought to be achieved by the TRO is nil due to certain
supervening events that transpired.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray despite the fact that
the finality of judgment has already been rendered.
RULING:
No, the Court was within its authority when it granted the TRO despite the
final and executory judgment having been rendered already.
1.The Court did not lose its jurisdiction when it granted the TRO. In its
decision, it categorically answered the contention of the plaintiff in such that it
is not changing its judgment. The Court is merely suspending its execution
temporarily.
It was emphasized tht the Court, in rendering the judgment lost its
jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same, but it retained its power to
execute and enforce it. It was further stated that the power to control the
execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction.
The 1987 Constitution, according to the Court, strengthened and broadened
the power of the Court in matters like these. It gave the Court the power to
Congressmen that they are against the repeal of the law; and (3) that current
actions undertaken by Senators Roco and Pimentel are futile.