leo ECHEGARAY y PILO vs. THE SEcRETRRY OF guSTICE Facts: Petitioner was convicted for the rape of his commen law spouse's fen year eld daughter and war ventonced $0 death pendlty, He filed 3 Motion for Reconsideration and Supptomental Motion for Reconsider Btion raising for the fist time the conetitution ai:ty of Re Te5q “ The Death Penalty Law" and the imposition oy death penalty for the crime Of cape. The wetions Were denied withshe court nding Mo ceaven to declare i+ unconstitutional end pronouncing Sengress compliant with the requicoments For ins impogition: : Issues Whether ef not RA su7 and its implementing ruler Jo not pass constitutional muse’ for being an undue delegation at legtlative power. RULING: There is no undue delegation of legislative power 1a RA No: $177 +0 the seceehary of Sustce and he director of buread of corrections, but Section 1a of the rutss nd regulations to jmploment 2A Ho. #177 iF invalid: tne Separation Of power W 3 Findamental principle in our isystem Of government end cach department har exclusive cognizance of motters vlaced within 1H surisdiotion, and ix wpremeDate: of the doctine ot wep2rasion of powers if Hhe PAnciple of non delegation of Powers. zn Letin maxim, the rule is! potertas delegate non deleg ari peter” there Ore however caceptiens to this rule @nd one of the recognized CheePtion is Y Delegaten to Rdmuwteatve Bodies.”