G.R. No.

117472 June 25, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

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.

RA 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 maintain 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:
Whether or not R.A. 8117 and its implementing rules do not pass constitutional muster for being
an undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling:
NO. There is no undue delegation of legislative power in R.A. No. 8117. 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 the recognized exceptions is “Delegation to Administrative
Bodies “
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.

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.