Echegaray Vs.

Secretary of Justice

Facts: Leo Echegaray was convicted and was to be executed by lethal injection (RA
8177) The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the execution
of said party. Said execution was set for Jan. 4, 1999 but the petitioner filed his Very
Urgent Motion for Issuance of TRO on Dece. 28, 1998. The Court was in recess at the
time but a Special Session was called to deliberate on said matters. Furthermore,
Congress was a new one with about 130 new members whose views on capital
punishment were still unexpressed. The suspension was temporary (until June 15, 1999,
unless it sooner becomes certain that no repeal or modification of the law is going to be
made). It was alleged that sine it is already final and executory, the Supreme Court has
lost its jurisdiction with the case.

Issue: Whether or not in issuing the temporary restraining order, the Supreme Court has
gone beyond its jurisdiction since the case is already final.

Ruling: It is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. What the SC could not
do is alter the decision. In the case at hand, the SC did nothing of the sort. Jurisprudence
tells us “the finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers nor
the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend,
modify or alter the same. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains its
jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. There is a difference between the jurisdiction of
the court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of
enforcement of judgment; the latter terminates when the judgment becomes final. For
after the judgment has become final, facts and circumstances may transpire which can
render the execution unjust or impossible.