ECHEGARAY v. SEC. OF JUSTICE January 19, 1999 (G.R. No.

132601) PARTIES: Petitioner: LEO ECHEGARAY Respondents: SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL FACTS: On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO staying the execution of petitioner Leo Echegaray scheduled on that same day. The public respondent Justice Secretary assailed the issuance of the TRO arguing that the action of the SC not only violated the rule on finality of judgment but also encroached on the power of the executive to grant reprieve. ISSUE: Whether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray despite the fact that the finality of judgment has already been rendered that by granting the TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive function. HELD: No. Respondents cited sec 19, art VII. The provision is simply the source of power of the President to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. The provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finality. The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life. For the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after his final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our government.

RADIOWEALTH, INC. VS AGREGADO (1950) FACTS:1.

A Webster Teletalk and Webster Telephone Speaker were bought for Pho 585 and installed in the secondand third floor of the Malacanang Annex which houses the Supreme Court.2.

The Chairman of the Property Requisition Committee (appointed by the President) disapproved of thepurchase and its installation invoking EO 302 which discontinues open market purchases.3.

Petitioners also contend that Judicial functions do not include purchase of property.4.

Radiowealth, Inc. (vendor) is now requesting that the payment be approved however, the Auditor of theSC refused to countersign the warrant for payment.ISSUE:1.

Executive?HELD: YES, they can.RD:Found in a ruling in Tarlac VS Gale y

All three departments are co-equal

and co-important , each is independent from the other and cannotcontrol or interfere with each other in the exercise of s pecial f unction s.

Judiciary has the power to maintain its existence and do whatever is necessary to preserve their integrity,maintain their dignity and en s ure

e ff

ectivene ss in

the

admini s tration

o fj u s tice .

Officials of the government who owe duty to the court under the law cannot

deprive

the

court s o

f anything

vital

to

their f unction s.

Officials and boards are duty-bound to construct or purchase offices or court rooms and furnish them.They also have to insure that the

character

o f the s e

room sw ould

permit

the

court

to

exerci s e

it sf unction s in

rea s onably

e ff ective

manner . y

I n

ca s e

o f con f lict

to , the

court s hall

overpo w er

the

o ff icial s a s they w ill

be

the

ultimate

in

determining w hat

i s nece

ss ary f or

it s e ff iciency .

Officials have the power to assign a particular room or court room to the Court of First Instance andchange the assignments provided that the new rooms are reasonable adequate. y

Courts have the power to refuse dispossession of the room if they deem that the new room would beinadequate in the exercise of their duties. y

If board refuses to furnish the articles mentioned by law, then the court w ould

have

the

po w er

either

to

purcha s e

thing s directly

or

by

proper

proceeding s to

compel

the

o ff icial s to

per f orm

their

dutie s to

the

la w.

Executive does not have power over the purchase of books and other office equipment needed for theconvenient transaction of its business. y

Court could not maintain its independence and dignity if it executive

could

determine w hat

the

court ss hould

have .T hey

are

o f equal f ooting w hen

it

come s to

the

requi s ition

o ff or f ixture s, equipment

and s upplie s