Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digests Echegaray and Apo Fruits
Digests Echegaray and Apo Fruits
132601, January 19, 1999 The Court also rejected public respondent’s contention that by granting
Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes the TRO, the Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law function under Sec. 19, Art. VII of the Constitution. In truth, an accused
who has been convicted by final judgment still possesses collateral rights
Facts: On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO staying the execution of and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a
petitioner Leo Echegaray scheduled on that same day. The public death convict who becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be
respondent Justice Secretary assailed the issuance of the TRO arguing executed while in a state of insanity. The suspension of such a death
that the action of the SC not only violated the rule on finality of judgment sentence is indisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not a
but also encroached on the power of the executive to grant reprieve. usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its effects are the
same as the temporary suspension of the execution of the death convict.
In the same vein, it cannot be denied that Congress can at any time amend
Issue: Whether or not the SC, after the decision in the case becomes final the Death Penalty Law by reducing the penalty of death to life
and executory, still has jurisdiction over the case imprisonment. The effect of such an amendment is like that of
commutation of sentence. But the exercise of Congress of its plenary
power to amend laws cannot be considered as a violation of the power of
Held: The finality of judgment does not mean that the SC has lost all its the President to commute final sentences of conviction. The powers of
powers or the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the SC loses is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death
its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Even after the convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no
judgment has become final, the SC retains its jurisdiction to execute and higher right than the right to life. To contend that only the Executive can
enforce it. 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 3 branches of the
The power to control the execution of the SC’s decision is an essential government.
aspect of its jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of substantial
subtraction for the Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in one
SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The important
part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of
decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance of the
parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the
litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforeseen,
supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the inherent
and necessary power of control of its processes and orders to make them
comform to law and justice.
Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines [G.R. No. 164195. the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to admit for Reconsideration in-
April 5, 2011] Intervention by the Office of the Solicitor General in behalf of the
03 Republic of the Philippines.
SEP
FACTS: ISSUES:
Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution expresses the constitutional xxxx
rule on eminent domain – “Private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation.” While confirming the State’s inherent More than the stability of our jurisprudence, the matter before us is of
power and right to take private property for public use, this provision at transcendental importance to the nation because of the subject matter
the same time lays down the limitation in the exercise of this power. involved – agrarian reform, a societal objective of that the government
When it takes property pursuant to its inherent right and power, the has unceasingly sought to achieve in the past half century.
circumstance, by itself, already confirms the unconscionable delay in the
From this perspective, the court demonstrated that the higher interests payment of just compensation.
of justice are duly served.
An added dimension is the impact of the delay. One impact – as pointed
(3) Yes. In fact, while a proposal was made during the deliberations of out above – is the loss of income the landowners suffered. Another
the 1986 Constitutional Commission to give a lower market price per impact that the LBP now glosses over is the income that the LBP earned
square meter for larger tracts of land, the Commission never intended to from the sizeable sum it withheld for twelve long years. From this
give agricultural landowners less than just compensation in the perspective, the unaccounted-for LBP income is unjust enrichment in its
expropriation of property for agrarian reform purposes. favor and an inequitable loss to the landowners. This situation was what
the Court essentially addressed when it awarded the petitioners 12%
[N]othing is inherently contradictory in the public purpose of land interest.
reform and the right of landowners to receive just compensation for the
expropriation by the State of their properties. That the petitioners are Remedial Law
corporations that used to own large tracts of land should not be taken
against them. As Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz eloquently put it:
[S]ocial justice – or any justice for that matter – is for the deserving, (1) No. When the Court ruled on the petitioners’ motion for
whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is reconsideration by a vote of 12 Members (8 for the grant of the motion
true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the and 4 against), the Court ruled on the merits of the petitioners’ motion.
balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends This ruling complied in all respects with the Constitution requirement for
its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor the votes that should support a ruling of the Court. Admittedly, the
simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they Court did not make any express prior ruling accepting or disallowing the
are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, petitioners’ motion as required by Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal
according to the mandate of the law. Rules. The Court, however, did not thereby contravene its own rule on
2nd motions for reconsideration; since 12 Members of the Court opted
Civil Law to entertain the motion by voting for and against it, the Court simply did
not register an express vote, but instead demonstrated its compliance
with the rule through the participation by no less than 12 of its 15
Members. Viewed in this light, the Court cannot even be claimed to have
Yes. In the present case, it is undisputed that the government took the suspended the effectiveness of its rule on 2nd motions for
petitioners’ lands on December 9, 1996; the petitioners only received full reconsideration; it simply complied with this rule in a form other than by
payment of the just compensation due on May 9, 2008. This express and separate voting.
(2) No. The submissions of the parties, as well as the records of the
case, have already provided this Court with enough arguments and
particulars to rule on the issues involved. Oral arguments at this point
would be superfluous and would serve no useful purpose.
(3) No. The interest of the Republic, for whom the OSG speaks, has
been amply protected through the direct action of petitioner LBP – the
government instrumentality created by law to provide timely and
adequate financial support in all phases involved in the execution of
needed agrarian reform. The OSG had every opportunity to intervene
through the long years that this case had been pending but it chose to
show its hand only at this very late stage when its presence can only
serve to delay the final disposition of this case. The arguments the OSG
presents, furthermore, are issues that this Court has considered in the
course of resolving this case. Thus, every reason exists to deny the
intervention prayed for.