Lawyer Ismael Khan Jr., SC assistant court administrator and spokesman, said Panganiban wants to close the issue that has generated negative reactions from 14 SC justices.
"Everything there to be said, has been said," he said. "Chief Justice Panganiban won’t comment anymore. He wants to leave this matter behind." Panganiban does not want the issue to get bigger, Khan said.
Panganiban and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had exchanged letters, regarding Panganiban’s statement that the SC committed a judicial error in upholding a lower court ruling that imposed the death penalty on Echegaray.
In a letter dated June 21 this year, Carpio said Panganiban’s statement was a "self-inflicted blow on the judiciary’s credibility."
"The Court will have to painstakingly rebuild its credibility from here on, and pray that the same unfortunate incident will not happen again," Carpio told Panganiban in his letter.
Carpio agreed with Sen. Edgardo Angara that Panganiban’s continued insistence that the high court erred in imposing the death penalty on Echegaray could shake people’s faith in the judiciary.
Panganiban said Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago agreed with Carpio.
"Agreeing with your (Carpio) position, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago wrote that my view allegedly generated unpalatable comments on the individual justices and the Court as an institution," Panganiban said in his letter to Carpio.
"To illustrate, she cited the criticisms of three (newspaper) columnists."
In his speech before the Free Legal Assistance Group, Panganiban said the death sentence of Echegaray should have been downgraded to life imprisonment because it was not proven in court that he was the biological father of the victim.
It was proven during the trial that Echegaray was not "a father, stepfather or grandfather" of the victim, he added.
Panganiban said the Supreme Court committed a judicial error in upholding Echegaray’s death penalty because it failed to apply the doctrine in four previous cases.
"I maintain my view that the death penalty has no place in our legal firmament," he said.
"Indeed, in spite of the meticulous scrutiny that the Supreme Court gives to death cases, it is still possible that an innocent person would be held legally guilty and thereafter judicially executed.
"As humans are imperfect, judges can make wrongful evaluations. A perfectly innocent individual could die due to human error, not to mention the guile and deceit that could accompany trials.
"Once carried out, the death sentence can no longer be reversed or modified."
Carpio wrote his first letter to Panganiban last June 15, telling him that it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to follow the doctrine in People v Gallo, People v Dimpalis, People v Manggasin and People v Panado at the time because the doctrine in these four cases "was nonexistent" when the SC decided on the Echegaray case.
"The doctrine in these four cases, however, all came after the Court decided (on the case of) Echegaray in Feb. 7, 1997 and Oct. 12, 1998," he said.
"The Court decided these four cases after, not before, Echegaray, as shown in footnotes 14 to 17 of your speech. It would have been impossible for the Court to follow the doctrine in these four cases because the doctrine was non-existent at the time the Court decided Echegaray.
"When the court decided Echegaray, the Court followed all the then-prevailing doctrines applicable to the case. This shows that the court decided Echegaray correctly.
"To hold that the Court in Echegaray should have applied a future doctrine would require the Court to possess the power to prophesy. No court or judge possesses such a power." — Jose Rodel Clapano