Cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment

297 SCRA 754

Echegaray v Secretary of Justice
Per Curiam

Summarized by Alyssa Mateo

Leo Echegaray was convicted for the crime of rape of the 10 year-old daughter of
his common-law wife. Death penalty was imposed. His conviction has been affirmed by
the Court. However, Congress passed RA 8177 which changed the method of carrying
out capital punishment from electrocution to lethal injection. Echegaray assails the
constitutionality of the Act and its implementing rules and regulations, arguing that they
allow cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment, and that they constitute an undue
delegation of power of congress. Ultimately, the Court declares two sections of the IRR
invalid, but upholds the constitutionality of RA 8177.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Leo Echegaray petitioner; sentenced to death penalty for rape

FACTS
1. Petitioner Leo Echegaray was convicted for the rape of the 10 year-old
daughter of his common-law spouse. The penalty imposed was death
penalty. The Court affirmed his conviction and the penalty.
2. Echegaray filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the constitutionality
of RA 7659 (the death penalty law), but it was denied by the Court, which held
that Congress has complied with the requirements of the reimposition of
death penalty.
3. In the meantime, Congress passed RA 8177 which changed the method of
carrying out capital punishment from electrocution to lethal injection.
4. Pursuant to the provisions of the law, the Secretary of Justice promulgated
its implementing rules and regulations and (as is prescribed by Sec. 19 of
the IRR), directed the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to prepare
the Lethal Injection Manual.
5. The petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order to enjoin respondents SOJ and Director of the Bureau of
Prisons from carrying out the petitioners execution by lethal injection. He
claims that RA 8177 and its IRR are unconstitutional for:
Violating the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment

1
 Violating international treaty obligations such as The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Being an undue delegation of legislative power
Being discriminatory

The Court also explained how lethal injection is carried out:

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 inmates arm
and begins an intravenous flow of saline solution. At the wardens 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.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N lethal injection is cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment under
Sec. 19 Art. III NO
Sec. 19 Art. III states: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted. []
Petitioner contends that death by lethal injection constitutes cruel,
degrading and inhuman punishment because:
o RA 8177 fails to provide for the drugs to be used in carrying out
lethal injection, the dosage of each drug administered, and the
procedure in administering said drugs into the accused
o RA 8177 and its IRR are uncertain as to the date of execution, time
of notification, the court which will fix the date of the execution,
which uncertainties cause the greatest pain and suffering for the
convict
o The possibility of botched executions renders lethal injection
inherently cruel
It is well settled in jurisprudence that the death penalty per se is not a
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. Punishments are cruel when
they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not
cruel.
As to the first contention: The lack in particularity as to the details in the
execution does not render the law cruel, degrading, or inhuman. The
implementing details of the RA are matters which are properly left to the
competence and expertise of administrative officials.
As to the second contention: There is no uncertainty as to which court will
fix the time and date of the execution. It is the trial court which convicted

2
 the accused. There is also no uncertainty as to the date of execution nor
the time of notification. Sec. 15 of the IRR, read in conjunction with Sec. 1
of RA 8177 provides that the death sentence shall be carried out not
earlier than 1 year nor later than 18 months after the judgment has
become final and executory.
As to the third contention: The petitioner argues that there will be an
infliction of wanton pain in cases of complications in the intravenous
injection, and that the respondent Director is untrained in the
administration of lethal injection. However, the Court ruled that this
contention is speculative and unsubstantiated.
o Petitioner did not present evidence that lethal injection requires the
expertise only of phlebotomists and not trained personnel and that
the drugs to be administered are unsafe or ineffective.
o Sec. 1 par. 3 of RA 8177 requires that all personnel involved in the
execution proceedings should be trained prior to the performance
of the task.
o Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in
carrying out the execution of the death penalty. 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.

2. W/N the reimposition of the death penalty law violates international

treaty obligations NO
Petitioner argues that the reimposition of the death penalty law violates our
international obligations, in particular, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the GA of the UN, then signed and
ratified by the Philippines.
However, Art. 6 of the Covenant, while it enshrines the individuals right to
life, explicitly recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation
on the right to life.
o Art. 6(1) Every human being has the inherent right to life which is
protected by law
o Art. 6(2) Acknowledges countries which have not abolished
death penalty, but states that it may only be imposed for the most
serious crimes
o Art. 6 pars. 3-6 Covers other particularities in imposing death
penalty

3
 Art. 6(2) to (6) shows that State parties are not obliged to abolish the
death penalty totally, they are only obliged to limit its use and, in particular,
to abolish it for other that the most serious crimes.
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights provides 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. The Optional
Protocol was adopted by the GA of the UN, and was signed and ratified by
the Philippines.
On the other hand, the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of Death
Penalty was adopted by the GA of the UN, but the Philippines neither
signed nor ratified the document.

3. W/N there is undue delegation of legislative power in RA 8177 to the

Secretary of Justice and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections NO
The general rule is that what has been delegated cannot be delegated;
however, there are exceptions: (1) tariff powers to the president; (2)
emergency powers to the president; (3) to the people at large; (4) to local
governments; (5) to administrative bodies.
Empowering the SOJ in conjunction with the Secretary of Health and the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections to promulgate the rules and
regulations on the subject of lethal injection is a form of delegation of
legislative authority to administrative bodies (exception #5).
There is delegation of authority because of the varied functions of
government which requires expertise.
Although Congress may delegate to another branch, the law must:
o Be complete in itself it must set forth the policy to be executed
o Fix a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or
determinable to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions
The Court states that these two requirements have been met. It doesnt
really go into detail as to how, but it cites safeguards (p. 786 left side par.
2).
The Court also notes that Art. 81 of the RPC which originally provided for
the death penalty by electrocution was not subjected to attack on the
ground that it failed to provide details.
There is no undue delegation of legislative power form the SOJ to the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections because the Bureau of Corrections

4
 is a mere constituent unit of the DOJ, which is charged with the
administration of the correctional system.

4. W/N Sec. 19 of the Implementing Rules is valid NO

Sec. 19. EXECUTION PROCEDURE. Details of the 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."

As to the first paragraph: Sec. 19 is invalid because SOJ abdicated the

power to promulgate the manual on the execution procedure to the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, by not providing a mode for
review and approval thereof.
As to the second paragraph: The requirement of confidentiality of the
contents of the manual even with respect to the convict is unduly
suppressive. The contents of the manual are matters of public concern,
and Sec. 7 Art. III of the Constitution enshrines the peoples right to
information on matters of public concern.

5. W/N Sec. 17 of the Implementing Rules is valid NO

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 of reclusion perpetua with the
accessory penalties provided in Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.

The petitioner contends that Sec. 17 is unconstitutional for being

discriminatory as well as for being an invalid exercise of the power to
legislate by the SOJ.
Sec. 17 is invalid because it amends the instances when lethal injection
may be suspended, without express amendment of Art. 83 as amended by
Sec. 25 of RA 7659.

"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".

Art. 83 suspends the implementation of the death penalty while a woman

is pregnant or within 1 year after delivery, but Sec. 17 of the Implementing
Rules omits the one year period following delivery as an instance when

5
 death penalty is suspended, and adds a ground for suspension not found
in Art. 83, which is the 3-year reprieve after a woman is sentenced.
This addition to the grounds for suspension is gender-based
discrimination sans statutory basis, while the omission is an
impermissible contravention of the applicable law.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED insofar as petitioner seeks to declare the
assailed statute (Republic Act No. 8177) as unconstitutional; but GRANTED insofar as
Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177
are concerned, which are hereby declared INVALID because (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.

OTHER NOTES
Four members of the Court voted to declare RA 8177 as unconstitutional