EN BANC[G.R. No. 132601.October 12, 1998]LEO ECHEGARAY y
PILO,petitioner, vs.THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and THE DIRECTOR OF
THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 104,respondents.D E C I S I O
NPER CURIAM:On June 25, 1996, this Court affirmed[1]the conviction
of petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the crime of rape of the 10
year-old daughter of his common-law spouse and the imposition upon
him of the death penalty for the said crime.Petitioner duly filed a
Motion for Reconsideration raising mainly factual issues, and on
its heels, a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raising for
the first time the issue of the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 7659[2](the death penalty law) and the imposition of the death
penalty for the crime of rape.On February 7, 1998, this Court
denied[3]petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration with a finding that Congress duly
complied with the requirements for the reimposition of the death
penalty and therefore the death penalty law is not
unconstitutional.In the meantime, Congress had seen it fit to
change the mode of execution of the death penalty from
electrocution to lethal injection,[4]and passed Republic Act No.
8177, AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF
CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE
81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 7659.[5]Pursuant to the provisions of said law, the
Secretary of Justice promulgated the Rules and Regulations to
Implement Republic Act No. 8177 ("implementing rules")[6]and
directed the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to prepare the
Lethal Injection Manual.[7]On March 2, 1998, petitioner filed a
Petition[8]for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining
Order to enjoin respondents Secretary of Justice and Director of
the Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the execution by lethal
injection of petitioner under R.A. No. 8177 and its implementing
rules as these are unconstitutional and void for being: (a) cruel,
degrading and inhuman punishmentper seas well as by reason of its
being (b) arbitrary, unreasonable and a violation of due process,
(c) a violation of the Philippines' obligations under international
covenants, (d) an undue delegation of legislative power by
Congress, (e) an unlawful exercise by respondent Secretary of the
power to legislate, and (f) an unlawful delegation of delegated
powers by the Secretary of Justice to respondent Director.On March
3, 1998, petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion for Leave of
Court[9]to Amend and Supplement Petition with the Amended and
Supplemental Petition[10]attached thereto, invoking the additional
ground of violation of equal protection, and impleading the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and the
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 104, in order
to enjoin said public respondents from acting under the questioned
rules by setting a date for petitioner's execution.On March 3,
1998, the Court resolved, without giving due course to the
petition, to require the respondents to COMMENT thereon within a
non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice, and directed
the parties "to MAINTAIN thestatus quoprevailing at the time of the
filing of this petition."On March 10, 1998, the Court granted the
Motion for Leave of Court to Amend and Supplement Petition, and
required respondents to COMMENT thereon within ten (10) days from
notice.On March 16, 1998, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Motion (1)
To clarifyStatus QuoOrder, and (2) For the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order expressly enjoining public respondents from
taking any action to carry out petitioner's execution until the
petition is resolved.On March 16, 1998, the Office of the Solicitor
General[11]filed a Comment (On the Petition and the Amended
Supplemental Petition)[12]stating that (1) this Court has already
upheld the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law, and has
repeatedly declared that the death penalty is not cruel, unjust,
excessive or unusual punishment; (2) execution by lethal injection,
as authorized under R.A. No. 8177 and the questioned rules, is
constitutional, lethal injection being the most modern, more
humane, more economical, safer and easier to apply (than
electrocution or the gas chamber); (3) theInternational Covenant on
Civil and Political Rightsdoes not expressly or impliedly prohibit
the imposition of the death penalty; (4) R.A. No. 8177 properly
delegated legislative power to respondent Director; and that (5)
R.A. No. 8177 confers the power to promulgate the implementing
rules to the Secretary of Justice, Secretary of Health and the
Bureau of Corrections.On March 17, 1998, the Court required the
petitioner to file a REPLY thereto within a non-extendible period
of ten days from notice.On March 25, 1998, the Commission on Human
Rights[13]filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and/or
Appear asAmicus Curiae[14]with the attached Petition to Intervene
and/or Appear asAmicus Curiae[15]alleging that the death penalty
imposed under R.A. No. 7659 which is to be implemented by R.A. No.
8177 is cruel, degrading and outside the limits of civil society
standards, and further invoking (a) Article II, Section 11 of the
Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."; (b)
Article III of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rightswhich states
that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person," and Article V thereof, which states that "No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment."; (c) TheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, in particular, Article 6 thereof, and theSecond Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights Aiming At The Abolition of the Death Penalty; (d) Amnesty
International statistics showing that as of October 1996, 58
countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 15
countries have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes, and
26 countries are abolitionistsde facto, which means that they have
retained the death penalty for ordinary crimes but are considered
abolitionists in practice that they have not executed anyone during
the past ten (10) years or more, or in that they have made an
international commitment not to carry out executions, for a total
of 99 countries which are total abolitionists in law or practice,
and 95 countries as retentionists;[16]and (e) Pope John Paul II's
encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae."In a Resolution dated April 3, 1998,
the Court duly noted the motion.On March 27, 1998, petitioner filed
a Reply[17]stating that (1) this Court is not barred from
exercising judicial review over the death penaltyper se, the death
penalty for rape and lethal injection as a mode of carrying out the
death penalty; (2) capital punishment is a cruel, degrading and
inhuman punishment; (3) lethal injection is cruel, degrading and
inhuman punishment, and that being the "most modern" does not make
it less cruel or more humane, and that the Solicitor General's
"aesthetic" criteria is short-sighted, and that the lethal
injection is not risk free nor is it easier to implement; and (4)
the death penalty violates theInternational Covenant on Civil and
Political Rightsconsidering that the Philippines participated in
the deliberations of and voted for theSecond Optional
Protocol.After deliberating on the pleadings, the Court gave due
course to the petition, which it now resolves on the merits.In the
Amended and Supplemental Petition, petitioner assails the
constitutionality of the mode of carrying out his death sentence by
lethal injection on the following grounds:[18]I.DEATH BY LETHAL
INJECTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING A CRUEL, DEGRADING AND
INHUMAN PUNISHMENT.II.THE DEATH PENALTY VIOLATES THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, WHICH IS PART OF THE LAW OF
THE LAND.III.LETHAL INJECTION, AS AUTHORIZED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO.
8177 AND THE QUESTIONED RULES, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS AN
UNNECESSARY AND WANTON INFLICTION OF PAIN ON A PERSON AND IS, THUS,
A CRUEL, DEGRADING, AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT.IV.REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177
UNDULY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO RESPONDENT
DIRECTOR.V.RESPONDENT SECRETARY UNLAWFULLY DELEGATED THE
LEGISLATIVE POWERS DELEGATED TO HIM UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177 TO
RESPONDENT DIRECTOR.VI.RESPONDENT SECRETARY EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY
DELEGATED TO HIM UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177 AND UNLAWFULLY USURPED
THE POWER TO LEGISLATE IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED
RULES.VII.SECTION 17 OF THE QUESTIONED RULES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOR BEING DISCRIMINATORY AS WELL AS FOR BEING AN INVALID EXERCISE
BY RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF THE POWER TO LEGISLATE.VIII.INJUCTION
MUST ISSUE TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO PETITIONER'S
RIGHTS BY REASON OF THE EXISTENCE, OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE AND EQUALLY INVALID AND IMPLEMENTING
RULES.Concisely put, petitioner argues that R.A. No. 8177 and its
implementing rules do not pass constitutional muster for: (a)
violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment, (b) violation of our international
treaty obligations, (c) being an undue delegation of legislative
power, and (d) being discriminatory.The Court shall now proceed to
discuss these issuesinseriatim.I. LETHAL INJECTION, NOT CRUEL,
DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 19, ARTICLE III OF
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.The main challenge to R.A. 8177 and its
implementing rules is anchored on Article III, Section 19 (1) of
the 1987 Constitution which proscribes the imposition of "cruel,
degrading or inhuman" punishment."The prohibition in the Philippine
Bill against cruel and unusual punishments is an Anglo-Saxon
safeguard against governmental oppression of the subject, which
made its first appearance in the reign of William and Mary of
England in 'An Act declaring the rights and liberties of the
subject, and settling the succession of the crown,' passed in the
year 1689.It has been incorporated into the Constitution of the
United States (of America) and into most constitutions of the
various States in substantially the same language as that used in
the original statute.The exact language of the Constitution of the
United States is used in the Philippine Bill."[19]"The counterpart
of Section 19 (1) in the 1935 Constitution reads: 'Excessive fines
shall not be imposed, nor cruel and inhuman punishment
inflicted.'xxx In the 1973 Constitution the phrase became 'cruel or
unusual punishment.'The Bill of Rights Committee of the 1986
Constitutional Commission read the 1973 modification as prohibiting
'unusual' punishment even if not 'cruel.'It was thus seen as an
obstacle to experimentation in penology.Consequently, the Committee
reported out the present text which prohibits 'cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment' as more consonant with the meaning desired and
with jurisprudence on the subject."[20]Petitioner contends that
death by lethal injection constitutes cruel, degrading and inhuman
punishment considering that (1) R.A. No. 8177 fails to provide for
the drugs to be used in carrying out lethal injection, the dosage
for each drug to be administered, and the procedure in
administering said drug/s into the accused; (2) R.A. No. 8177 and
its implementing rules are uncertain as to the date of the
execution, time of notification, the court which will fix the date
of execution, which uncertainties cause the greatest pain and
suffering for the convict; and (3) the possibility of "botched
executions" or mistakes in administering the drugs renders lethal
injection inherently cruel.Before the Court proceeds any further, a
brief explanation of the process of administering lethal injection
is in order.In lethal injection, the condemned inmate is strapped
on a hospital gurney and wheeled into the execution room.A trained
technician inserts a needle into a vein in the inmate's arm and
begins an intravenous flow of saline solution.At the warden's
signal, a lethal combination of drugs is injected into the
intravenous line.The deadly concoction typically includes three
drugs: (1) a nonlethal dose of sodium thiopenthotal, a sleep
inducing barbiturate; (2) lethal doses of pancuronium bromide, a
drug that paralyzes the muscles; and (3) potassium chloride, which
stops the heart within seconds.The first two drugs are commonly
used during surgery to put the patient to sleep and relax muscles;
the third is used in heart bypass surgery.[21]Now it is
well-settled in jurisprudence that the death penaltyper seis not a
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.[22]In the oft-cited case
ofHarden v. Director of Prisons,[23]this Court held that
"[p]unishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering
death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning
of that word as used in the constitution.It implies there something
inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment
of life."Would the lack in particularity then as to the details
involved in the execution by lethal injection render said law
"cruel, degrading or inhuman"?The Court believes not.For reasons
hereafter discussed, the implementing details of R.A. No. 8177 are
matters which are properly left to the competence and expertise of
administrative officials.[24]Petitioner contends that Sec. 16[25]of
R.A. No. 8177 is uncertain as to which "court" will fix the time
and date of execution, and the date of execution and time of
notification of the death convict.As petitioner already knows, the
"court" which designates the date of execution is the trial court
which convicted the accused, that is, after this Court has reviewed
the entire records of the case[26]and has affirmed the judgment of
the lower court.Thereupon, the procedure is that the "judgment is
entered fifteen (15) days after its promulgation, and 10 days
thereafter, the records are remanded to the court below including a
certified copy of the judgment for execution.[27]Neither is there
any uncertainty as to the date of execution nor the time of
notification.As to the date of execution, Section 15 of the
implementing rules must be read in conjunction with the last
sentence of Section 1 of R.A. No. 8177 which provides that the
death sentence shall be carried out "not earlier than one (1) year
nor later then eighteen (18) months from the time the judgment
imposing the death penalty became final and executory, without
prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive
clemency powers at all times." Hence, the death convict is in
effect assured of eighteen (18) months from the time the judgment
imposing the death penalty became final and executory[28]wherein he
can seek executive clemency[29]and attend to all his temporal and
spiritual affairs.[30]Petitioner further contends that the
infliction of "wanton pain" in case of possible complications in
the intravenous injection, considering and as petitioner claims,
that respondent Director is an untrained and untested person
insofar as the choice and administration of lethal injection is
concerned, renders lethal injection a cruel, degrading and inhuman
punishment.Such supposition is highly speculative and
unsubstantiated.First.Petitioner has neither alleged nor presented
evidence that lethal injection required the expertise only of
phlebotomists and not trained personnel and that the drugs to be
administered are unsafe or ineffective.[31]Petitioner simply cites
situations in the United States wherein execution by lethal
injection allegedly resulted in prolonged and agonizing death for
the convict,[32]without any other evidence
whatsoever.Second.Petitioner overlooked Section 1, third paragraph
of R.A. No. 8177 which requires that all personnel involved in the
execution proceedings should be trained prior to the performance of
such task.We must presume that the public officials entrusted with
the implementation of the death penalty (by lethal injection) will
carefully avoid inflicting cruel punishment.[33]Third.Any
infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in
carrying out the execution of death penalty and does not fall
within the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading and
inhuman punishment."In a limited sense, anything is cruel which is
calculated to give pain or distress, and since punishment imports
pain or suffering to the convict, it may be said that all
punishments are cruel.But of course the Constitution does not mean
that crime, for this reason, is to go unpunished."[34]The cruelty
against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty
inherent in the method of punishment, not the necessary suffering
involved in any method employed to extinguish life
humanely.[35]Numerous federal and state courts of the United States
have been asked to review whether lethal injections constitute
cruel and unusual punishment.No court has found lethal injections
to implicate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.In fact, most
courts that have addressed the issue state in one or two sentences
that lethal injection clearly is a constitutional form of
execution.[36]A few jurisdictions, however, have addressed the
merits of the Eighth Amendment claims.Without exception, these
courts have found that lethal injection does not constitute cruel
and unusual punishment.After reviewing the medical evidence that
indicates that improper doses or improper administration of the
drugs causes severe pain and that prison officials tend to have
little training in the administration of the drugs, the courts have
found that the few minutes of pain does not rise to a
constitutional violation.[37]What is cruel and unusual "is not
fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion
becomes enlightened by a humane justice" and "must draw its meaning
from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society."[38]Indeed, "[o]ther (U.S.) courts have focused
on 'standards of decency' finding that the widespread use of lethal
injections indicates that it comports with contemporary
norms."[39]the primary indicator of society's standard of decency
with regard to capital punishment is the response of the country's
legislatures to the sanction.[40]Hence, for as long as the death
penalty remains in our statute books and meets the most stringent
requirements provided by the Constitution, we must confine our
inquiry to the legality of R.A. No. 8177, whose constitutionality
we duly sustain in the face of petitioner's challenge.We find that
the legislature's substitution of the mode of carrying out the
death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection infringes no
constitutional rights of petitioner herein.II. REIMPOSITION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL TREATY
OBLIGATIONSPetitioner assiduously argues that the reimposition of
the death penalty law violates our international obligations, in
particular, theInternational Covenant on Civil And Political
Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on December 16, 1996, signed and ratified by the
Philippines on December 19, 1966 and October 23,
1986,[41]respectively.Article 6 of theInternational Covenant on
Civil and Political Rightsprovides:"1.Every human being has the
inherent right to life.This right shall be protected by law.No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.2. In countries which
have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be
imposed only for themost serious crimesin accordance with the law
in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not
contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide.This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final
judgment rendered by a competent court." (emphasis supplied)3. When
deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is
understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State
Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any
obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.4. Anyone
sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence.Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the
sentence of death may be granted in all-cases.5. Sentence of death
shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen
years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant
women.6.Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to
prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State.Party to
the present Covenant."Indisputably, Article 6 of the Covenant
enshrines the individual's right to life.Nevertheless, Article 6
(2) of theCovenantexplicitly recognizes that capital punishment is
an allowable limitation on the right to life, subject to the
limitation that it be imposed for the "most serious
crimes".Pursuant to Article 28 of theCovenant, a Human Rights
Committee was established and under Article 40 of theCovenant,
State parties to theCovenantare required to submit an initial
report to the Committee on the measures they have adopted which
give effect to the rights recognized within theCovenantand on the
progress made on the enjoyment of those rights one year of its
entry into force for the State Party concerned and thereafter,
after five years.On July 27, 1982, the Human Rights Committee
issuedGeneral Comment No. 6interpreting Article 6 of
theCovenantstating that "(while) it follows from Article 6 (2) to
(6) that State parties are not obliged to abolish the death penalty
totally, they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to
abolish it for other than the 'most serious crimes.'Accordingly,
they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this light
and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the
death penalty to the most serious crimes.'The article strongly
suggests (pars. 2 (2) and (6) that abolition is desirable. xxx The
Committee is of the opinion that the expression 'most serious
crimes' must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty
should be a quite exceptional measure."Further, theSafeguards
Guaranteeing Protection of Those Facing the Death
Penalty[42]adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations declare that the ambit of the term 'most serious crimes'
should not go beyond intentional crimes, with lethal or other
extremely grave consequences.TheOptional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightswas adopted by
the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966,
and signed and ratified by the Philippines on December 19, 1966 and
August 22, 1989,[43]respectively.TheOptional Protocolprovides that
the Human Rights Committee shall receive and consider
communications from individuals claiming to be victims of
violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.On the
other hand, theSecond Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of
the Death Penaltywas adopted by the General Assembly on December
15, 1989.The Philippines neither signed nor ratified said
document.[44]Evidently, petitioner's assertion of our obligation
under theSecond Optional Protocolis misplaced.III. THERE IS NO
UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN R.A. NO. 8177 TO THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, BUT
SECTION 19 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT R.A. NO. 8177
IS INVALID.The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in
our system of government.It obtains not through express provision
but by actual division in the framing of our Constitution.Each
department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters
placed within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere.[45]Corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the
principle of non-delegation of powers."The rule is that what has
been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin
maxim:potestas delegata non delegaripotest."[46]The recognized
exceptions to the rule are as follows:(1) Delegation of tariff
powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President
under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution;(3)
Delegation to the people at large;(4) Delegation to local
governments; and(5) Delegation to administrative
bodies.[47]Empowering the Secretary of Justice in conjunction with
the Secretary of Health and the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, to promulgate rules and regulations on the subject of
lethal injection is a form of delegation of legislative authority
to administrative bodies.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.The growth of society has ramified its activities and
created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature
cannot be expected to attend to by itself.Specialization even in
legislation has become necessary.On many problems involving
day-to-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the needed
competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to
say, specific solutions.These solutions may, however, be expected
from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the
particular fields assigned to them.[48]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[49]- 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.[50]Considering the scope and the definiteness of R.A.
No. 8177, which changed the mode of carrying out the death penalty,
the Court finds that the law sufficiently describes what job must
be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his
authority.[51]R.A. No. 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.[52]R.A. No. 8177 specifically requires that "[t]he
death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections,endeavoring so far as
possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the
sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the
proceedings prior to the execution."[53]Further, "[t]he Director of
the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps toensure that the lethal
injection to be administered is sufficient to cause the
instantaneous death of the convict."[54]The legislature also
mandated that "all personnel involved in the administration of
lethal injection shall be trained prior to the performance of such
task."[55]The Court cannot see that any useful purpose would be
served by requiring greater detail.[56]The question raised is not
the definition of what constitutes a criminal offense,[57]but the
mode of carrying out the penalty already imposed by the Courts.In
this sense, R.A. No. 8177 is sufficiently definite and the exercise
of discretion by the administrative officials concerned is, to use
the words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, canalized within banks that
keep it from overflowing.Thus, the Court finds that the existence
of an area for exercise of discretion by the Secretary of Justice
and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections under delegated
legislative power is proper where standards are formulated for the
guidance and the exercise of limited discretion, which though
general, are capable of reasonable application.[58]It is also
noteworthy that Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code which
originally provided for the death penalty by electrocution was not
subjected to attack on the ground that it failed to provide for
details such as the kind of chair to be used, the amount of
voltage, volume of amperage or place of attachment of electrodes on
the death convict.Hence, petitioner's analogous argument with
respect to lethal injection must fail.A careful reading of R.A. No.
8177 would show that there is no undue delegation of legislative
power from the Secretary of Justice to the Director of the Bureau
of Corrections for the simple reason that under the Administrative
Code of 1987, the Bureau of Corrections is a mere constituent unit
of the Department of Justice.[59]Further, the Department of Justice
is tasked, among others, to take charge of the "administration of
the correctional system."[60]Hence, the import of the phraseology
of the law is that the Secretary of Justice should supervise the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections in promulgating the Lethal
Injection Manual, in consultation with the Department of
Health.[61]However, the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic
Act No. 8177 suffer serious flaws that could not be overlooked.To
begin with, something basic appears missing in Section 19 of the
implementing rules which provides:"SEC. 19.EXECUTION PROCEDURE.
-Details of the procedure prior to, during and after administering
the lethal injection shall be set forth in a manual to be prepared
by the Director.The manual shall contain details of, among others,
the sequence of events before and after execution; procedures in
setting up the intravenous line; the administration of the lethal
drugs; the pronouncement of death; and the removal of the
intravenous system.Said manual shall be confidential and its
distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel."Thus,
the Courts finds in the first paragraph of Section 19 of the
implementing rules a veritable vacuum.The Secretary of Justice has
practically abdicated the power to promulgate the manual on the
execution procedure to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
by not providing for a mode of review and approval thereof.Being a
mere constituent unit of the Department of Justice, the Bureau of
Corrections could not promulgate a manual that would not bear the
imprimatur of the administrative superior, the Secretary of Justice
as the rule-making authority under R.A. No. 8177.Such apparent
abdication of departmental responsibility renders the said
paragraph invalid.As to the second paragraph of section 19, the
Court finds the requirement of confidentiality of the contents of
the manual even with respect to the convict unduly suppressive.It
sees no legal impediment for the convict, should he so desire, to
obtain a copy of the manual.The contents of the manual are matters
of public concern "which the public may want to know, either
because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary
citizen."[62]Section 7 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides:"SEC. 7.The right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized.Access to official records,
and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transaction, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as a basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitation as may be provided by law."The
incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to
information of public concern is a recognition of the essentiality
of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy.[63]In the
same way that free discussion enables members of society to cope
with the exigencies of their time,[64]access to information of
general interest aids the people in democratic
decision-making[65]by giving them a better perspective of the vital
issues confronting the nation.[66]D.SECTION 17 OF THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT R.A. NO. 8177 IS INVALID FOR BEING
DISCRIMINATORY AND CONTRARY TO LAW.Even more seriously flawed than
Section 19 is Section of the implementing rules which
provides:"SEC. 17.SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEATH
SENTENCE.Execution by lethal injection shall not be inflicted upon
a woman within the three years next following the date of the
sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy
(70) years of age.In this latter case, the death penalty shall be
commuted to the penalty ofreclusion perpetuawith the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40 of the Revised Penal
Code."Petitioner contends that Section 17 is unconstitutional for
being discriminatory as well as for being an invalid exercise of
the power to legislate by respondent Secretary.Petitioner insists
that Section 17 amends the instances when lethal injection may be
suspended, without an express amendment of Article 83 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 25 of R.A. No.
7659.Article 83 f the Revised Penal Code, as amended by section 25
of R.A. No. 7659 now reads as follows:"ART. 83,Suspension of the
execution of the death sentence.- The death sentence shall not be
inflicted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year
after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of age.In
this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalty provided in
Article 40. x x x".On this point, the Courts finds petitioner's
contention impressed with merit.While Article 83 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659,
suspends the implementation of the death penaltywhile a woman is
pregnant or withinone (1) year after delivery, Section 17 of the
implementing rulesomitsthe one (1) year period following delivery
as an instance when the death sentence is suspended, andaddsa
ground for suspension of sentence no longer found under Article 83
of the Revised Penal Code as amended, which is thethree-year
reprieveafter a woman is sentenced.Thisadditionis, in petitioner's
view, tantamount to a gender-based discrimination sans statutory
basis, while theomissionis an impermissible contravention of the
applicable law.Being merely an implementing rule, Section 17
aforecited must not override, but instead remain consistent and in
harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement.Administrative
rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to
supplant nor to modify, the law."[67]An administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.[68]In case of discrepancy between
a provision of statute and a rule or regulation issued to implement
said statute, the statutory provision prevails.Since the cited
clause in Section 17 which suspends the execution of a woman within
the three (3) years next following the date of sentence finds no
supports in Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code as amended,
perforce Section 17 must be declared invalid.One member of the
Court voted to declare Republic Act. No. 8177 as unconstitutional
insofar as it delegates the power to make rules over the same
subject matter to two persons (the Secretary of Justice and the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections) and constitutes a violation
of the international norm towards the abolition of the death
penalty.One member of the Court, consistent with his view inPeople
v. Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682, 734-758 (1997) that the death penalty
law (Republic Act. No. 7659) is itself unconstitutional, believes
that Republic Act No. 8177 which provides for the means of carrying
out the death sentence, is likewise unconstitutional.Two other
members of the court concurred in the aforesaid Separate Opinions
in that the death penalty law (Republic Act No. 7659) together with
the assailed statute (Republic Act No. 8177) are
unconstitutional.In sum, four members of the Court voted to declare
Republic Act. No. 8177 as unconstitutional.These Separate Opinions
are hereto annexed,infra.WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIEDinsofar as
petitioner seeks to declare the assailed statute (Republic Act No.
8177) as unconstitutional; butGRANTEDinsofar as Sections 17 and 19
of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are
concerned, which are hereby declaredINVALIDbecause (a) Section 17
contravenes Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 25 of the Republic Act No. 7659; and (b) Section 19 fails
to provide for review and approval of the Lethal Injection Manual
by the Secretary of Justice, and unjustifiably makes the manual
confidential, hence unavailable to interested parties including the
accused/convict and counsel.Respondents are hereby enjoined from
enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the
aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to
Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are appropriately amended, revised
and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision.NO COSTS.SO
ORDERED.Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez,
QuisumbingandPurisima, JJ.,concur.Narvasa, C.J.,On official
leavePardo, J.,No part.See Per Curiams Dissenting OpinionAandB
[1]Peoplev. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 257 SCRA 561 [1996].The
lower Court decision was penned by Judge Maximiano C.
Asuncion.[2]AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS
CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, which took
effect on December 31, 1993;People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 569
[1994].[3]Peoplev. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 267 SCRA 682
[1997].[4]Records of the Senate, October 5, 1995, p. 48.Senator
Ernesto F. Herrera explained that: "The present prescribed method
in carrying out capital punishment is death by electrocution.This
will later be changed to gas poisoning, as provided by Sec. 24 of
R.A. No. 7659, as soon as the Bureau of Corrections can have the
proper facilities for the purpose.There would not have been any
problem had the old electric chair been saved from fire in the New
Bilibid Prison that totally destroyed it.Without an electric chair
or gas chamber, our penal system today has no means of implementing
the death sentence.The very high cost needed for the replacement of
the electric chair and the building of a gas chamber bogs down the
whole process.This is, indeed, the appropriate time to introduce
lethal injection as a new means of carrying out the death
penalty.This method is less expensive, more humane, easier to
administer and conveniently more portable."[5]Published in the
Manila Times on March 23, 1996.[6]Published in the Philippine Star
on May 23, 1998.[7]RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT R.A. NO.
8177, Section 19.[8]Rollo, p. 3.[9]Rollo, p. 49.[10]Rollo, p.
51.[11]Through then Solicitor-General Romeo C. de la Cruz,
Assistant Solicitors-General Pio C. Guerrero and Antonio G. Castro,
and Solicitor-General Evelyn C. Balgos-Guballa.[12]Rollo, p.
102.[13]Through Commissioner Jorge R. Coquia and Director Emmanuel
C. Neri.[14]Rollo, p. 129.[15]Rollo, p. 136.[16]Annex "A" to the
Petition to Intervene and/or Appear asAmicusCuriae,Rollo, p.
151.[17]Rollo, p. 157.[18]Amended and Supplemental Petition,Rollo,
pp. 55-81.[19]U.S.v. Borromeo, 23 Phil, 285-286 [1912].[20]Bernas,
J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A
Commentary, 1996 ed., p., 501; I RECORD 707-8.[21]Comment of the
Solicitor-General,Rollo, p. 115; Rules and Regulations to Implement
Republic Act No. 8177, Sections 2(b), 15, 20-22; Bureau of
Corrections Lethal Injection Manual, pp. 13-22.[22]People v.
Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682, 694 [1997];People v. Marcos, 147 SCRA 204,
216 [1987];People v. Puda, 133 SCRA 1, 13 [1984];People v. Camano,
115 SCRA 688, 702 [1982];Harden v. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil.
741, 747 [1948].[23]81 Phil. At 747, citingIn Ex Parte Kemmler, 136
U.S. 436.[24]Records of the Senate, January 29, 1996, pp. 15,
13:Senator Macapagal.I notice that the bill does not specify
exactly what drug, chemical, or combination of drug and chemical is
to be administered.Is my impression correct, Mr. President?Senator
Maceda.Yes, Mr. President.Precisely,those are the kinds of details
that are better left to the Executive department to implement by
administrative regulation. (emphasis supplied)Senator
Macapagal.Therefore, it would be up to the Director of the Bureau
of Corrections to choose the drugs or chemicals to be used.Is that
correct, Mr. President?Senator Maceda.I would think this is a
matter that would be initiated by the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections.But following established procedure, it will have to be
with the approval of the Secretary of Justice.xxxSenator
Macapagal.And as far as the procedure is concerned, the bill does
not also state exactly how the execution is to be carried out, or
the procedure to be used.Is there no intention or would it not be
more pragmatic for the law to provide the procedure to be
undertaken in carrying out the execution in order to lessen the
possibility of negligence during the actual execution?Senator
Maceda.We felt, Mr. President, thatwhen it comes to the details of
the procedure, it would be better to leave it to administrative
regulation.After all, the main import of the law really is to
change the method of execution from the "electric chair" to "lethal
injection." (emphasis supplied)[25]Sec. 16.NOTIFICATION AND
EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE AND ASSISTANCE TO THE CONVICT. - The
court shall designate a working day for the execution of the death
penalty but not the hour thereof.Such designation shall only be
communicated to the convict after sunrise of the day of the
execution, and the execution shall not take place until after the
expiration of at least eight (8) hours following the notification,
but before sunset. - During the interval between the notification
and execution, the convict shall, as far as possible, be furnished
such assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his
last moments by a priest or minister of the religion he professes
and to consult his lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and
confer with members of his family or of persons in charge of the
management of his business, of the administration of his property,
or of the care of his descendants.[26]As mandated by Article VIII
Section 5 (2) (d) of the 1987 Constitution, and Section 3 (e) of
Rule 122, Rules on Criminal Procedure.[27]Sections 10 and 11 of
Rule 51 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Section
17 of Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.[28]In G.R. No.
117472, we issued anen bancresolution dated September 2, 1997,
wherein we held that: "xxx In criminal cases, Section 7 of Rule 120
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states the circumstances when a
judgment becomes final.However, we cannot specifically apply these
tenets to judgments imposing the death penalty which is imposed or
affirmed by this Court itself since, obviously, no appeal lies
therefrom.Thus, it is only but proper that ajudgment of this Court
imposing the death sentence becomes final and executory after the
expiration of fifteen (15) days from service of a copy thereof on
counsel of the accused-appellant, or on the latter if so ordered by
this Court, and no motion for reconsideration or, where allowed by
this Court, a motion for new trial [see Helmuth, Jr. v. People, 112
SCRA 573 [1982]; People v. Amparado, 156 SCRA 712 [1987]] has been
filed by accused-appellant, or no ground has supervened which would
justifiably interrupt or warrant the suspension of the running of
the reglementary period for finality.Where a motion for
reconsideration has been filed and denied, the finality of such
resolution shall be substantially subject to the same
rule."Records, pp. 308-309.[29]Records of the Senate, January 29,
1996, pp. 8-9.:Senator Drilon.xxx [O]n page 2 of Senate Bill No.
436, it is provided here that the death sentence shall be carried
out not later than one year after the judgment has become final.I
would just like to get a confirmation from the distinguished
Sponsor if this provision will not in any way interfere with or
diminish the constitutional power of the President to reduce or
commute or grant pardon to convicts who are sentenced to death
through lethal injection as provided under this bill.Senator
Maceda.No, Mr. President, it would not diminish the power of the
President.I would express the view at this time that while we hope
that the President will make such judgment within the one-year
period, I would take the view that if within the one-year period or
near the end of the expiration of the one-year period he were to
issue a suspension or commutation, then certainly the
constitutional power lodged in him cannot be diminished by
legislation.Senator Drilon.Can the President commute a death
penalty to life imprisonment after one year, from the time the
judgment has become final?Senator Maceda.I would say that as long
as the convict is not yet dead or executed, then the President
still retains that power.[30]RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
R.A. NO. 8177, Sections 4, 6-9 provideSec. 4.PRISON SERVICES. -
Subject to the availability of resources, a death convict shall
enjoy the following services and privileges to encourage and
enhance his self-respect and dignity:a. Medical and Dental;b.
Religious, Guidance and Counselling;c. Exercise;d. Visitation;
ande. Mail.xxxSec. 6.RELIGIOUS SERVICES. - Subject to security
conditions, a death convict may be visited by the priest or
minister of his faith and given such available religious materials
which he may require.Sec. 7.EXERCISE. - A death convict shall be
allowed to enjoy regular exercise periods under the supervision of
a guard.Sec. 8.MEAL SERVICES.- Meals shall, whenever practicable,
be served individually to a death convict outside his cell.Mess
utensils shall be made of plastic.After each meal, said utensils
shall be collected and accounted.Sec. 9.VISITATION. - A death
convict shall be allowed to be visited by his immediate family and
reputable friends at regular intervals and during designated hours
subject to security procedures.In addition, Article 82 of the
Revised Penal Code provides: "xxx During the interval between the
notification and the execution, the culprit shall, in so far as
possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in order
to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the
religion he professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order
to make a will and confer with members of his family or persons in
charge of the management of his business, of the administration of
his property, or of the care of his descendants."[31]See Woolls v.
McCotter, 798 F.2d 695, 698 (5TH Cir. 1986), wherein the U.S. Court
of Appeals held that "First, the appellant has not even alleged,
much less produced any evidence, that the Texas Department of
Corrections allows anyone other than trained medical personnel to
administer lethal injections.Second, the appellant has neither
alleged nor produced evidence that would indicate that improper
dosages of sodium thiopental have been or will be administered so
as to result in physical or mental pain.Finally, even if the
physical and mental manifestations noted by Dr. Hodes were
experienced by an individual, this showing "of discomfort or
unnecessary pain" falls far short of the showing found insufficient
inGray v. Lucas, [710 f2d. 1048, 1057-61 (5TH Cir.),cert. Denied,
463 U.S. 1237, 104 S. Ct. 211, 77 L.Ed. 2d 1453 (1983)]."O'Bryan,
729 F.2d at 994.Woolls has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of his right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the eighth amendment."[32]Amended and Supplemental
Petition,Rollo, pp. 65-67.[33]SeeState of Nevada v. Gee Jon, 46
Nev. 418, 211 P. 676, 682, 30 A.L.R. 1443, 1450-1451
[1923].[34]American Law Reports, Annotated, 30 A.L.R. 1452 at
1453.[35]Ex Parte Granviel, 561 S.W. 2d 503, 509 [1978],citing
Lousiana ex. rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 464, 67 S. Ct.
374, 376, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947).[36]19 Thomas Jefferson Law Review
(Spring 1997), 1-38, at 31-32., citingKelly v. Lynaugh, 862 F. 2d
1126, 1135 (5TH Cir., 1988) ("Finally, Kelly argues against lethal
injection as a method of execution, arguing that it is cruel and
unusual punishment, especially when administered by an unqualified
person.Again, "[w]e have rejected this argument");O' Bryan v.
McKaskle, 729 F.2d 991, 994 (5TH Cir. 1984) ("[w]e agree with the
state that the showing made by O'Bryan of discomfort or unnecessary
pain falls short of the showing found insufficient inGray v.
Lucas");Silagy v. Peters, 713 F.Supp. 1246, 1258 (C.D. III, 1989
("The petitioner claims that lethal injection is cruel and unusual
punishment.There is nothing in the record that supports that
contention.");State v. Moen, 786 P.2d. 111, 143 (Ore.
1990);Hopkinson v. State, 798 P.2d 1186, 1187 (Wyo.
1990).[37]Supra. at 32, citingWoolls v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 695 (5TH
Cir. 1986) (holding that the use of sodium thiopental for
executions, although it may cause conscious death by suffocation,
is not cruel and unusual);LaGrand v. Lewis, 883 F. Supp. 469,
469-71 (D. Ariz. 1995) (reviewing affidavits of physicians and
prison execution protocols);Hill v. Lockhart, 791 F. Supp. 1388,
1394 (E.D. Ark. 1992) (holding that, when the executioner has
difficulty locating a vein, multiple insertions of the needle do
not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment).[38]Ex Parte
Granviel,supra. at 509, citingTrop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.
Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed. 2d 630 (1958).See alsoEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 290, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 258-259 (1976).[39]19
Thomas Jefferson Law Review (Spring 1997) at 32-33, citingLaGrand
v. Lewis, 883 F.Supp. 469, 471 (D. Ariz. 1995) (holding that lethal
injection comports with societal norms based on the fact that 26
states and the federal government have adopted this method of
execution);State v. Deputy, 644 A.2d 411, 421 (Del. 1994)
(surveying that 28 of 37 States permitting capital punishment
permit the use of lethal injection);Delaware v. Gattis, 1995 WL
790961, at *21 (Del. Super. 1995) (holding that the AMA's ethical
ban on physician's assisting at executions does not provide
evidence of society's evolving standards of decency).[40]66 The
George Washington Law Review (November 1997, No. 1) 84 at 100,
citingStanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 370-371 (1989) (plurality
opinion) ("(F)irst among the "objective indicia that reflect the
public attitude toward a given sanction" are statutes passed by
society's elected representatives." (quoting McClesky, 481 U.S. at
300 (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. at 173)));Thompson, 487 U.S. at 849
(O'Connor, J., concurring) ("[The] decisions of the [American
legislatures] should provide the most reliable signs of a
society-wide consensus on this issue.");Gregg, 428 U.S. at 175-176)
("[T]he constitutional test [in judging a punishment under the
Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause] is intertwined with an
assessment of contemporary standards and the legislative judgment
weighs heavily in ascertaining such standards.)";Furman, 408 U.S.
at 436-37 (Powell, J., dissenting) ("In a democracy the first
indicator of the public's attitude must always be found in the
legislative judgments of the people's chosen
representatives.").[41]Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the
Secretary-General Status as at 31 December 1994, United Nations,
New York, p. 117; United Nations,Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171
and vol. 1057, p. 407; Human Rights, International Instruments,
Chart of Ratifications as at 31 December 1997, United Nations, p.
8.[42]TheSafeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those
Facing the Death Penaltywas adopted by Economic and Social Council
resolution 1984-50 of May 25, 1984.The Safeguards provide:"1.In
countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital
punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it
being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional
crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.2. Capital
punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death
penalty is prescribed by law at the time of its commission, it
being understood that if, subsequent to the commission of the
crime, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter
penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.3. Persons below 18
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime shall not
be sentenced to death, nor shall the death sentence be carried out
on pregnant women, or on new mothers, or on persons who have become
insane.4. Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of
the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence
leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts.5.
Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final
judgment rendered by a competent court after legal process which
gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least
equal to those contained in Article 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of
anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital
punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all
stages of the proceedings.6. Anyone sentenced to death shall have
the right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction, and steps
should be taken to ensure that such appeals shall become
mandatory.7. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek
pardon, or commutation of sentence; pardon or commutation of
sentence may be granted in all cases of capital punishment.8.
Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or
other recourse procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or
commutation of the sentence.9. Where capital punishment occurs, it
shall be carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible
suffering."[43]Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the
Secretary-General, Status as at 31 December 1994, United Nations,
New York, 1995, p. 153; United NationsTreaty Series, vol. 999, p.
171; Human Rights, International Instruments, Chart of
Ratifications as at 31 December 1997, United Nations, p.
8.[44]Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General,
Status as at 31 December 1994, United Nations, New York; United
Nations, Doc. A/RES/44/128; Human Rights, International
Instruments, Chart of Ratifications as at 31 December 1997, United
Nations, p. 8.[45]SeeAngara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139,
156 [1936].[46]Defensor-Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270
SCRA 106, 153 [1997], citingPeople v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328
[1939]; ISAGANI A. CRUZ, Philippine Political Law 86
[1996].[47]Id., citingPeople v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937];
CRUZ,supra. 87.[48]SeeEastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, 166
SCRA 533, 544 [1988].[49]Pelaez v. Auditor-General, 15 SCRA 569,
576-577 [1965], citingCalalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726;Pangasinan
Transp. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 70 Phil. 221;Cruz v.
Youngberg, 56 Phil. 234;Alegre v. Collector of Customs, 53 Phil.
394;Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38.[50]Id., citingPeople v. Lim Ho,
L-12091-2, January 28, 1960;People v. Jolliffee, L-9553, May 13,
1959; Peoplev. Vera, 65 Phil. 56;U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil.
1;Compaia General de Tabacos v. Board of Public Utility, 34 Phil.
136;Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U.S. 247, 59 L.
Ed., 561;Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U.S. 230, 59
L. Ed. 552;Pamana Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 79 L.
Ed..446; A.L.A. Schecter Poulty Corp.v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, 79 L.
Ed. 1446;Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 88 L. Ed. 892;Araneta
v. Gatmaitan, L-8895, April 30, 1957;Cervantes v. Auditor-General,
L-4043, May 26 1952;Phil. Association of Colleges v. Sec. Of
Education, 51 Off. Gaz. 6230;People v. Arnault, 48 Off. Gaz.
4805;Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, 68 Phil. 340;U.S. v. Barrias, 11
Phil. 327;Yakus v. White, 321 U.S. 414;Ammann v. Mailonce, 332 U.S.
245.[51]SeeEdu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481, 496 [1970].[52]Id. at
497.[53]R.A. No. 8177, Sec. 1, first paragraph.[54]Id., second
paragraph.[55]Id., third paragraph.[56]State v. Gee Jon, 46 Nev.
418, 211 P. 676, 682, 30 A.L.R. 1443, 1451 (1923).[57]Ex Parte
Granviel,supra. at 513 citing citingLangford v. State, 532 S.W.2d
91, 94 (Tex. Cr.App. 1976).[58]Id., at 514 citingNichols v. Dallas,
347 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Civ.App. - Dallas, 1961).[59]Section 4 of
Chapter I, Title III of the Administrative Code of 1987
provides:"SEC. 4.Organizational structure. - The Department (of
Justice) shall consist of the following constituent units:(1)
Department proper;(2) Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel;(3) National Bureau of Investigation;(4) Public Attorney's
Office;(5) Board of Pardons and Parole;(6) Parole and Probation
Administration;(7) Bureau of Corrections;(8) Land Registration
Authority;(9) Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems."[60]Section 1 of Chapter I, Title III of the
Administrative Code of 1987 provides:"SEC. 1.Declaration of Policy.
- It is the declared policy of the State to provide the government
with a principal law agency which shall be both its legal counsel
and prosecution arm; administer the criminal justice system in
accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the
investigation of the crimes, prosecution of offenders and
administration of the correctional system; implement the laws on
the admission and stay of aliens, citizenship, land titling system,
and settlement of land problems involving small landowners and
members of indigenous cultural minorities; and provide free legal
services to indigent members of the society."[61]Section 3 of R.A.
No. 8177 provides:"SEC. 3.Implementing Rules. - The Secretary of
Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the Bureau
of Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity
of this Act, promulgate the rules to implement its
provisions."[62]Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530,
541 [1987][63]Id. at 540, citingBaldoza v. Dimaano, Adm, Matter No.
1120-MJ, May 5, 1976, 17 SCRA 14.[64]Id., citingThornill v.
Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 [1939].[65]Id., citing 87 Harvard Law
Review 1505 [1974].[66]Id.[67]Grego v. Commission on Elections, 274
SCRA 481, 498 [1997], citingCommissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 368 [1995].[68]Id. At 498-499,
citingMiners Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Factoran, Jr.,
240 SCRA 100 [1995], further citingSantos v. Estenzo, 109 Phil.
419, 422 (1960);Teoxon v. Members of the Board of Administrators,
33 SCRA 585 [1970];Manuel v. General Auditing Office, 42 SCRA 660
[1971],Deluao v. Casteel, 29 SCRA 350 [1969].
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/132601_b.htmDISSENTING
OPINIONOn March 20, 1996, Republic Act No. 8177 was signed into
law.Entitled "An Act Designating Death byLethal Injectionas a
Method of Carrying Out Capital Punishment, Amending For the Purpose
of Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, As Amended by Section 24
of Republic Act No. 7659," it reads:"SECTION 1.Article 81 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24 of Republic Act No.
7659 is hereby further amended to read as follows:'Art. 81.When and
how the death penalty is to be executed. - The death sentence shall
be executed with preference to any other penalty and shall consist
in putting the person under the sentence to death bylethal
injection.The death sentence shall be executed under the authority
of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections endeavoring so far as
possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the
sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the
proceedings prior to the execution.TheDirector of the Bureau of
Correctionsshall take steps to ensure that the lethal injection to
be administered is sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of
the convict.Pursuant to this all personnel involved in the
administration of lethal injection shall be trained prior to the
performance of such task.The authorized physician of the Bureau of
Corrections after thorough examination, shall officially make a
pronouncement of the convict's death and shall certify thereto in
the records of the Bureau of Corrections.The death sentence shall
be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor later than
eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become final and
executory without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his
executive clemency powers at all times.'"SEC. 2.Persons already
sentenced by judgment, which has become final and executory, who
are waiting to undergo the death penalty by electrocution or gas
poisoning shall be under the coverage of the provisions of this Act
upon its effectivity.Their sentence shall be automatically modified
for this purpose."SEC. 3.Implementing Rules.The Secretary of
Justicein coordination with the Secretary of Health and Bureau of
Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of
this Act,promulgate the rules to implement its provisions."SEC.
4.Repealing Clause.- All laws, presidential decrees and issuances,
executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof
inconsistentwith the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly."SEC. 5.Effectivity.- This Act shall take
effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in theOfficial
Gazetteor in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation, whichever comes earlier.Publication shall not be later
than ten (10) days after the approval thereof.Approved."On April
28, 1997, the Secretary of Justice Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.,
promulgated the Rules of Regulation to Implement Republic Act No.
8177.They provide:"RULES AND REGULATIONS TOIMPLEMENT REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 8177Pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8177 entitled 'AN
ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING
OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
7659', the undersigned, in coordination with the Secretary of
Health and the Director of Corrections, hereby issues the following
Rules to govern the implementation of said Act:SECTION
1.OBJECTIVES. - These Rules seek to ensure the orderly and humane
execution of the death penalty by lethal injection.SEC. 2DEFINITION
OF TERMS. - As used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise
requires-a.'Death Convict' or'Convict' shall refer to a prisoner
whose death penalty imposed by Regional Trial Court is affirmed by
the Supreme Court en banc;b.'Lethal Injection' refers to sodium
thiopenthotal, pancuronium bromide, potassium chloride and such
other lethalsubstances as may be specified by the Director of
Corrections that will be administered intravenously into the body
of a convict until said convict is pronounced dead;c.'Bureau'
refers to the Bureau of Corrections;d.'Director' refers to the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections;e.'Secretary' refers to the
Secretary of the Department of Justice.SEC. 3.PRINCIPLES. - The
following principles shall be observed in the implementation of
these Rules:a.There shall be no discrimination in the treatment of
a death convict on account of race, color, religion, language,
politics, nationality, social origin, property, birth or other
status.b.In the execution of a death penalty, the death convict
shall be spared from unnecessary anxiety or distress.c.The
religious belief of the death convict shall be respected.SEC.
4.PRISON SERVICES.- Subject to the availability of resources, a
death convict shall enjoy the following services and privileges to
encourage and enhance his self-respect and dignity:a.Medical and
Dental;b.Religious, Guidance and Counseling;c.Exercised.Visitation;
ande.Mail.SEC. 5.CONFINEMENT. - Whenever practicable, the death
convict shall be confined in an individual cell in a building that
is exclusively assigned for the use of death convict.The convict
shall be provided with a bunk, a steel/wooden bed or mat, a pillow
or blanket and mosquito net.SEC. 6.RELIGIOUS SERVICES. - Subject to
security conditions, a death convict may be visited by the priest
or minister of his faith and given such available religious
materials which he may require.SEC. 7.EXERCISE. - A death convict
shall be allowed to enjoy regular exercise periods under the
supervision of a guard.SEC. 8.MEAL SERVICES- Meals shall, whenever
practicable, be served individually to a death convict inside his
cell.Mess utensils shall be made of plastic.After each meal, said
utensils shall be collected and accounted.SEC. 9.VISITATION- A
death convict shall be allowed to be visited by his immediate
family and reputable friends at regular intervals and during
designatedhours subject to security procedures.SEC. 10.LIST OF
VISITORS. - A list ofpersons who may visit a death convict shall be
compiled and maintained by the prison authorities.The list may
include the members of the convict's immediate family such as his
parents, step parents, foster parents, brothers and sisters, wife
or husband and children.The list may, upon the request of convict,
include his grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and cousins.Other
visitors may, after investigation, be included in the list if it
will assist in raising the morale of the convict.SEC. 11.INTERVIEWS
OF CONVICTS. - Television, radio and other interviews by media of a
death convict shall not be allowed.SEC. 12.HANDLING OF INMATE MAIL.
- The sending and receiving of mail by death convict shall be
controlled to prevent illicit communication.Mail shall be censored
in accordance with existing prison rules.SEC. 13.OUTSIDE MOVEMENT.
- A death convict may be allowed to leave his place of confinement
only for diagnosis of a life-threatening situation or treatment of
a serious ailment, if the diagnosis cannot be done or the treatment
provided in the prison hospital.SEC. 14.COURT APPEARANCE.- A death
convict shall not be brought outside the penal institution where he
is confined for appearance or attendance in any court except when
the Supreme Court authorizes, upon proper application, said outside
movement.A judge who requires the appearance or attendance of a
death convict in any judicial proceeding shall conduct such
proceeding within the premises of the penal institution where the
convict is confined.SEC. 15.HOW LETHAL INJECTION IS TO BE
ADMINISTERED. - The execution of the death sentence by lethal
injection shall be done under the authority of the Director who
shall endeavor to mitigate the sufferings of the convict prior to
and during the execution.SEC. 16.NOTIFICATION AND EXECUTION OF THE
SENTENCE AND ASSISTANCE TO THE CONVICT. - The court shall designate
a a working day for the execution of the death penalty but not the
hour thereof.Such designation shall only be communicated to the
convict after sunrise of the day of execution, and the execution
shall not take place until the expiration of at least eight (8)
hours following the notification, but before sunset.During the
interval between notification and execution, the convict shall, as
far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in
order to be attended in his last moments by a priest or minister of
the religion he professes and to consult his lawyers, as well as in
order to make a will and confer with members of his family or of
persons in charge of the management of his business, of the
administration of his property, or of the care of his
descendants.SEC. 17.SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEATH
SENTENCE. - Execution by lethal injection shall not be inflicted
upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the
sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy
(70) years of age.In this latter case, the death sentence shall be
commuted to the penalty ofreclusion perpetuawith the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.SEC.
18.PLACE OF EXECUTION. - The execution by lethal injection shall
take place in the prison establishment and space thereat as may be
designated by the Director.Said place shall be closed to public
view.SEC. 19.EXECUTION PROCEDURE.- Details of the procedure prior
to, during and after administering the lethal injection shall be
set forth in amanualto be prepared by the Director.Themanualshall
contain details of, among others, the sequence of events before and
after the execution; procedures in setting up the intravenous line;
the administration of the lethal drugs; the pronouncement of death;
and the removal of the intravenous system.Saidmanual shall be
confidentialand its distribution shall be limited to authorized
prison personnel.SEC. 20.QUANTITY AND SAFEKEEPING OF DRUGS
PURCHASED. - The exact quantities of the drug needed for an
execution of a death penalty shall be purchased by the Director
pursuant to existing rules and regulations not earlier than ten
(10) days before the scheduled date of execution.The drugs shall be
kept securely at the office of the superintendent of the prison
where the death sentence is to be executed.All unused drugs shall
be inventoried and disposed of properly under the direct
supervision of the Director.SEC. 21.ADMINISTERING LETHAL DRUGS. -
The injection of the lethal drugs to a death convict shall be made
by a person designated by the Director.SEC. 22.IDENTITY OF PERSON
ADMINISTERING LETHAL INJECTION. - The identity of the person who is
designated to administer the lethal injection shall be kept
secret.SEC. 23.PERSONS WHO MAY WITNESS EXECUTION. - The execution
ofa death convict shall be witnessed only by the priest or minister
assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives,
not exceeding six, if the convict so desires, by the physician and
the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such
persons as the Director may authorize.A person below eighteen (18)
years of shall not be allowed to witness an execution.SEC.
24.EXPULSION OF WITNESS. - Any person who makes unnecessary noise
or displays rude or improper behavior during an execution shall be
expelled from the lethal injection chamber.SEC. 25.NON-RECORDING OF
EXECUTION. - The Director shall not allow the visual, sound or
other recording of the actual execution by media or by any private
person or group.SEC. 26.DISPOSITION OF CORPSE OF CONVICT. - Unless
claimed by his family, the corpse of a death convict shall, upon
the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the
execution, be turned over to an institution of learning or
scientific research first applying for it, for it, for the purpose
of study and investigation, provided that such institution shall
take chargeof the decent burial of the remains.Otherwise, the
Director shall order the burial of the body of the convict at
government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to
the members of the family of the convict and the friends of the
latter.In no case shall the burial of a death convict be held with
pomp.SEC. 27.EFFECTIVITY. - These Rules shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.APPROVED.28 April 1997(Sgd.)TEOFISTOT. GUINGONA,
JR.Secretary"Petitioner's conviction for the heinous crime of rape
has been affirmed by this Court.[1]To stave off his execution,
petitioner now contends:(1)death by lethal injection is
unconstitutional for being cruel, degrading, and inhuman
punishment; (2) the death penalty violates the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of the law of
the land; (3) R.A. No. 8177 unduly delegates legislative power to
respondent Director; (4) respondent Secretary unlawfully delegated
the legislative power delegated to him under R.A. No. 8177 to
respondent Director; and (5) respondent Secretary exceeded the
authority delegated to him under R.A. No. 8177 and unlawfully
usurped the power to legislate in promulgating the questioned
rules.With due respect to the majority, I agree with the petitioner
an submit the following propositions,viz:IR.A. NO. 8177 Is Void As
It Delegates The Power ToMake Rules Over The Same Subject Matter To
Two PersonsR.A. No. 8177 is unprecedented in our annals of
lawmaking.A careful reading will show that it actually authorizes
two persons to promulgate rules and regulations to implement its
provisions - one, the Secretary of Justice and the other, the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections.The delegated power of the
Secretary of Justice is given in section 3 which provides:"The
Secretary of Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health
and Bureau of Corrections shall x x x promulgate the rules to
implement its provisions."The delegated power of the Director of
the Bureau of Corrections can be gleaned from section 1 of the law
which provides "x x x The death sentence shall be executed under
the authority of the Director of the Bureau of
Correctionsendeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the
sufferings of the person under the sentence during the lethal
injection as well as during the proceedings prior to the
execution.The Director of the Bureau of Correctionsshall take
stepsto ensure that the lethal injection to be administered is
sufficient to causethe instantaneous death of the convict," Under
said Section 1, the power of the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections to promulgate rules cannot be denied.The Director
cannot carry out his duty to execute the death sentence"x x x
endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the
person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well as
during the proceedings prior to the execution"as well as his duty
to "x x x take steps to ensure that the lethal injection to be
administered is sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of the
convict,"without the power to promulgate the necessary
rules.Indeed, it was pursuant to this power to make rules that the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections prepared aManualgoverning the
"details of the procedure prior to, during and after administering
the lethal injection x x x."The Manual which is a compendium of the
rules of execution is recognized by no less than the respondent
Secretary of Justice.It is my humble submission that this
unprecedented act of delegating the power to make rulesto two
persons over the same subject matterdoes not have any
constitutional warrant.It can easily spawn legal absurdities and
incongruities.The two authorities exercising the same power over
the same subject matter may promulgate contrasting if not
contradictory rules to the prejudice of theremaining rights of a
death convict.In the case at bar, the anomalous situation is
exacerbated by the possibility that the rules promulgated by the
Director of Corrections, a lower ranked official, may contradict
the rules of the Secretary of Justice, the top-ranked official in
the Department of Justice.We should lay down the case law that the
legislative choice of who shall be the delegate to make the rules
and regulations to implement a law must be clear and
unequivocal.Unless the choice of delegate is clear, the
promulgation of the appropriate rules and regulations cannot be
done.It is self evidentthat the legislative choice of who shall
promulgate the rules to implement the law is as important as the
standard which should guide the delegate in making the rules.Both
must be beyond doubt.IIAssuming Arguendo That R.A. No. 8177 Is
Valid, Nonetheless,The Rules And Regulations Implementing The Law
Are Void.We may assume arguendo that R.A. No. 8177 exclusively
delegates to the respondent Secretary of Justice the power to
promulgate its implementing rules and regulations.Nevertheless, I
agree with the petitioner that the implementing rules and
regulations are void.First.It is elementary that the respondent
Secretary of Justice cannot further delegate the power to make
rules and regulations to another person.Delegata potestas non
potest delegari, delegated power cannot further be delegated is a
time honored legal principle.Under section 19 of the Rules and in
blatant breach of this principle, the respondent Secretary of
Justice delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections the
power to determine the "details of the procedure prior to, during
and after administering the lethal injection."In addition, he
abdicated to the said Director the power to determine "the sequence
of events before and after the execution; procedures in setting up
the intravenous lines; the administration of the lethal drugs; the
pronouncement of death; and the removal of the intravenous
system."The matters sub-delegated by the respondent Secretary of
Justice to the Director of Bureau ofCorrections involve themost
significant aspectsof the execution process.A wrong rule in any of
these aspects of the execution process will deny a death convict
theright to die with dignity.CitingDeath Row Confidentialby
Weinstein and Bessent, petitioner relates some bizzare experience
that have resulted from the inept executions of some death convicts
by lethal injection,viz:x x x"27.1.On May 3, 1995, EMMITT FOSTER
tookthirty (30) minutes to die after the drugs entered his
bloodstream.The delay in his death was attributed to anoverly
tightleather strapbindingFoster's arm (which) slowed the process to
a snail's pace.According to the reporters who covered the
execution, Foster was 'gasping, slightly convulsing' when the
blinds in the chamber were drawn."27.2.On January 24 1992, RICKEY
RAY RECTOR'S death took on even ghastlier proportions.Rector was
298 pounds;it took the executioners more than fifty (50) minutes to
find a usable vein in his arm.All this while, Rector, who was
seriously brain damagedby reason of a lobotomy, was helping the
personnel to locate a vein andall throughout, Rector could be heard
moaning loudly as the staff tried to insert the line into a
suitable vein."27.3.On March 13, 1985, STEPHEN PETER
MORINlaystrapped on the gurney for forty five (45) minuteswhile the
technicians repeatedly pricked his arms and legs with a needle in
search of a vein suitable for the IV line."27.4.On August 20, 1986,
RANDY WOOLS had to help his executioners find a good vein so that
he could die.On June 24, 1987, Elliot Johnsonwaited on the gurney,
awake and fully conscious for thirty five minutes, while the
executioners searched for a place to insert the line."27.5.On
December 13, 1988, RAYMOND LANDRY was killed at 12:45 in the
morning after afourteen-minute delay when one of the two needles
sprang a leak, sending lethal liquid shooting across the room.The
leak was caused by a "blowout" which results from the syringe
coming out of the vein."27.6.On May 24, 1989, STEPHEN MCCOY had
such aviolent physical reaction to the drugs, consisting of heaving
chest, gasping and choking."27.7.On May 10, 1994, after the
execution of JOHN WAYNE GACY had begun,one of the three lethal
drugs used clogged the tube; the tube had to be replaced with a new
one."The choice of the delegate who shall cobble the rules and
regulations that will implement a law is part of lawmaking and
hence, this power to choose is the sole prerogative of Congress.It
follows that the delegate so designated by Congress has no
authority to choose another who shall discharge the power given to
him by Congress.It is a duty that the delegate cannot
abdicate.SECOND.It isbad enoughthat the respondent Secretary of
Justice surrendered to the Director of Corrections the power to
promulgate the rules on "x x x the sequence of events before and
after the execution; procedures in setting up the intravenous line;
the administration of the lethal drugs; the pronouncement of death;
and the removal of the intravenous system."Worse still, under
section 19 of the Rules, the respondent Secretary of Justice
ordered that the rules governing these details should be contained
in aManualthat "shall beconfidentialand its distribution shall be
limited to authorized prison personnel."In other words, the
operating Manual is asecretManual whose content is unknown to the
person to be executed and unbeknown to the public as well.Thesecret
Manualcan well contain arbitrary, capricious and whimsical rules
and yet the rules cannot be challenged as they are known to the
Director and authorized prison personnel but not to the person most
affected --- the death convict.If basic due process demands that no
person can be denied his lesser property rights thru unpublished
laws, there is more reason to hold that one cannot be denied his
greater right to life thru unpublished rules.Thesecret Manualdenies
a death convict theright to know how he will die.THIRD.While the
respondent Secretary of Justice was unenthusiastic in crafting the
rules on the criticalaspects of the execution process, he was over
enthusiastic in enacting rules on mattersunrelated to the subject
matter of R.A. No. 8177.R.A. No. 8177 is stark clear on its subject
matter.As its title indicates, it is merely "An Act Designating
Death byLethal Injection as the Methodof Carrying Out Capital
Punishment x x x."Yet, the Rules promulgated by the respondent
Secretary overly arched on matterstoo remotely connectedwith the
subject matter of R.A. No. 8177 such as prison services, manner of
confinement, religious services, exercise, meal services,
visitation and interviews, private correspondence and
communication, court appearance, etc.These elaborate rules arenot
germaneto the purpose of R.A. No. 8177.A re-reading of section 3
ofR.A. No. 8177 will reveal that the authority of the respondent
Secretary of Justice is limited to promulgating rules on how lethal
injection should be administered to the death convict.Nothing less
and nothing more.But this is not all.Under section 17 of the Rules,
the respondent Secretary of Justice ordained that "the execution by
lethal injection shall not be inflictedupon a woman within the
three years next following the date of the sentenceor while she is
pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy (70) years of age."The
rule suspending the execution of a pregnant woman and the
commutation of the death sentence of a convict over seventy (70)
years of age is in harmony with Article 83 of the Revised Penal
Code.There is however,no lawthat provides that "execution by lethal
injection shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the three
years next following the date of sentence x x x."In ordaining this
rule, the respondent Secretary engaged in out-and-out legislation
which is taboo for an executive official.Our long undisturbed
jurisprudence is that the "x x x rule making power of a public
administrative body is delegated power, which it may not use either
to abridge the authority given it by the Congress or the
Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended.A
public administrative body may make only such rules and regulations
as are within the limits of the powers granted to it."[2]IIIR.A.
No. 8177 Implementing The Death PenaltyViolates International
NormAt the core of the issue of death penalty is theinherent and
inalienable right to lifeof every human being.The recognition of
this inherent right to life is one of theself-evidentprinciples
that inspired the adoption offive (5) major international
covenants:the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in
1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in
1966, and the two Operational Protocol to the latter Covenant.These
legal instruments are collectively called theInternational Bill of
Human Rights.[3]The universal fight for the recognition of the
right to life should never be lost in the mist of history.In
December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adoptedwithout
dissent theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.[4]The Universal
Declaration is a pledge among nations to promote rights inherent in
each and every individual.Theses rights were distinguished from
mere privileges that may be awarded by governments for good
behavior and withdrawn for bad behavior.[5]Thus,Article 3 of the
Universal Declaration decrees that "everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of the person."The Philippines is a proud
signatory to this document.On December 16, 1966, the United Nations
General Assembly went on to adopt theInternational Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[6]It was opened for signature
on December 19, 1966 and entered into force on March 23, 1976.With
respect to the death penalty, this Covenant provides:[7]"1.Every
human being has the inherent right to life.This right shall be
protected by law.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
life."2.In countries which have not abolished the death penalty,
sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes
in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission
of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present
Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide.This penalty can only be carried out pursuant
to a final judgment rendered by a competent court."x x x."4.Anyone
sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence.Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the
sentence of death may be granted in all cases."5Sentence of death
shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen
years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant
women."6.Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to
prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to
the present Covenant."On July 27, 1982, the United Nations Human
Rights Committee issuedGeneral Comment No. 6interpreting Article 6
of the ICCPR.[8]It stated:"(while) it follows from Article 6 (2) to
(6) that State parties not obliged to abolish the death penalty
totally, they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to
abolish it for other than the 'most serious crimes.'Accordingly,
they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this light
and, in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the
death penalty to the 'most serious crimes'.The Article also refers
generally to abolition in terms which strongly suggest (pars 2(2)
and (6)) that abolition is desirable."x x x."The Committee is of
the opinion that the expression "most serious crimes" must be read
restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be quite
exceptional measure. x x x."As of December 31, 1996, parties to the
ICCPR has totalled 137including the Philippines.[9]TheOptional
Protocolto the Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966.[10]It entered into
force on March 23, 1976.This Protocol provides for the mechanism
for checking state compliance to the provisions of international
human rights instruments such as a reportorial requirement among
governments.The Philippine signed this Protocol on December 19,
1966 and ratified it on August 22, 1989.As of December 1996, this
Optional Protocol has 89 state parties.[11]TheSecond Optional
Protocolto the ICCPR Aiming at theAbolition of the Death Penaltywas
adopted and opened for signing by the General Assembly on December
15, 1989.[12]It entered into force on July 11, 1991.[13]The
Philippines together with 58 other states voted in favor of the
adoption of this document, while 26 voted against and 48
abstained.[14]However, the Philippines has not ratified this
Protocol.Under this Protocol, States must take all necessary
measures to abolish the death penalty.More specifically, it
provides that:[15]"1.No one within the jurisdiction of a State
Party to the present Optional Protocol shall be executed."2.Each
State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death
penalty within its jurisdiction."As of December 1996, 25 States
have ratified this Optional Protocol.[16]From its inception, the
United Nations has been steadfast in its view that like killings
which take place outside the law, the death penalty denies the
value of human life.In United Nations General Assembly Resolutions
2857 (XXVI) and 32/61 of 6 December 1977 and in Economic and Social
Council Resolutions 1574(L), 1945 (LIV) and 1930 (LVIII) the
abolition of the death penalty was marked as one of the high aims
of the assembly of civilized nations.In recent years, the United
Nations has adopted numerous resolutions to make it more difficult
for states to implement the death penalty.Thus, on May 24, 1989,
theEconomic and Social Councilby Resolution 1989/64 recommended
that Member States take steps to implement the Safeguards
Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those acing the Death
Penalty.[17]The Safeguards have nine provisions specifying the
basic guarantees in criminal justice proceedings, in the context of
the rights of the offenders charged with a capital offense.[18]The
Safeguards were approved by the ECOSOC on the understanding that
they should not be invoked to delay or prevent the abolition of
capital punishment.On April3, 1997, in its 53rd Session,
theCommission on Human Rightsadopted Resolution 1997/12 on the
Question of the Death Penalty.[19]In this resolution the Commission
took note of the report of the Secretary General on capital
punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing
protection of the rights of those facing the death
penalty,[20]which states thatthere has been a considerable shift
towards the abolition of the death penalty.[21]Thus, "convinced
that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement
of human dignity and to the progressive development of human
rights", the Commission resolved to take the following