SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

^{SEPARATE OPINION}

PANGANIBAN, J.:

I agree with the Courts Resolution that, without doubt, this Court has jurisdiction to issue the disputed Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on January 4, 1999. I will not repeat its well-reasoned disquisition. I write only to explain my vote in the context of the larger issue of the death penalty.

Since the solicitor general has demonstrated that Congress will not repeal or amend RA 7659 during its current session which ends on June 15, 1999 and that, in any event, the President will veto any such repeal or amendment, the TRO should by its own terms be deemed lifted now. However, my objections to the imposition of the death penalty transcend the TRO and permeate its juridical essence.

I maintain my view that RA 7659 (the Death Penalty Law) is unconstitutional insofar as some parts thereof prescribing the capital penalty fail to comply with the requirements of heinousness and compelling reasons prescribed by the Constitution of the Philippines.* This I have repeatedly stated in my Dissenting Opinions in various death cases decided by the Court, as well as during the Courts deliberation on this matter on January 4, 1999. For easy reference, I hereby attach a copy of my Dissent promulgated on February 7, 1997.

Consequently, I cannot now vote to lift the TRO, because to do so would mean the upholding and enforcement of a law (or the relevant portions thereof) which, I submit with all due respect, is unconstitutional and therefore legally nonexistent. I also reiterate that, in my humble opinion, RA 8177 (the Lethal Injection Law) is likewise unconstitutional since it merely prescribes the manner in which RA 7659 (the Death Penalty Law) is to be implemented.

Having said that, I stress, however, that I defer to the rule of law and will abide by the ruling of the Court that both RA 7659 and RA 8177 are constitutional and that the death penalty should, by majority vote, be implemented by means of lethal injection.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I vote to deny the solicitor generals Motion for Reconsideration.

Endnotes:

---

* I have further explained my unflinching position on this matter in my recent book Battles in the Supreme Court, particularly on pages 58 to 84.