c

 

 




 
 







!
" #
$


% &'



On March 30, 1998, The President signed appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela
and Hon. Placido Vallarta as Judges of RTC-Bago City and Cabanatuan City,
respectively. These appointments were deliberated, as it seemed to be expressly
prohibited by Art 7 Sec 15 of the Constitution:
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."

A meeting was held on March 9, 1998 by the Judicial and Bar Council to discuss the
constitutionality of appointments to the Court of Appeals (CA) in light of the
forthcoming 1998 Presidential elections. Senior Associate Justice Florenz Regalado,
Consultant of the Council and Member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, was
in the position that Dzelection ban had no application to the CA based on the
Commissionǯs recordsdz. This þ þ

was then submitted to the President for
consideration together with the Councilǯs nominations for 8 vacancies in the CA.

The Chief Justice (CJ) received on April 6, 1998, an official communication from the
Executive Secretary transmitting the appointments of 8 Associate Justices of CA duly
signed on þ
$
 (day immediately before the commencement of the ban
on appointments), which implies that the Presidentǯs Office did not agree with the
þ þ





The President, addressed to the JBC, requested on May 4, 1998 the transmission of
the Dzlist of final nomineesdz for the vacancy in view of the 90 days imposed by the
Constitution (from Feb 13, date present vacancy occurred). In behalf of the JBC, CJ
sent the reply on May 6 that no session has been scheduled after the May elections
for the reason that they apparently did not share the same view (þ þ

)

proposed by the JBC shown by the uniformly dated þ
$
 appointments.
However, it appeared that the Justice Secretary and the other members of the
Council took action without waiting for the CJ reply. This prompted CJ to call for a
meeting on May 7. On this day, CJ received a letter from the President in reply of the
May 6 letter where the President expressed his view that Article 7 Sec 15 only
applied to executive appointments, the whole article being entitled DzEXECUTIVE
DEPTdz. He posited that appointments in the Judiciary have special and specific
provisions, as follows:
Article 8 Sec 4
"The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three,
five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof."
Article 8 Sec 9
"The Members of the Supreme Court and judges in lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from the list of at least three nominees prepared by
the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.
On May 12, CJ received from Malacanang, the appointments of the 2 Judges of the
RTC mentioned. Considering the pending proceedings and deliberations on this
matter, the Court resolved by refraining the appointees from taking their oaths.
However, Judge Valenzuela took oath in May 14, 1998 claiming he did so without
knowledge on the on-going deliberations. It should be noted that the originals of the
appointments for both judges had been sent to and received by the CJ on May 12 and
is still in the latterǯs office and had not been transmitted yet. According to Judge
Valenzuela, he did so because of the May 7 Malacanang copy of his appointment.

In construing Article 7 and 8: when there are no presidential election, Art8 shall
apply where vacancies in SC shall be filled within 90 days otherwise prohibition in
Art7 must be considered where the President shall not make any appointments.
According to Fr. Bernas, the reason for prohibition is in order not to tie the hands of
the incoming Pres through midnight appointments.

c*+'

WON the President can fill vacancies in the judiciary pursuant to Article 8 Sec 4 and
9, during the appointment ban period stated in Article 7 Sec 15.

+,-'

Article 8 Sec 4 and 9 simply mean that the DzPresident is required to fill vacancies in
the courts within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Article7
Sec15. Thus, þ

 


þ
.

/
   


þ




0



 Likewise, the prohibition on appointments comes
into effect only once every six years. The Court also pointed out that Article8 Sec4
and 9 should prevail over Article7 Sec15 as they may be considered later
expressions of the people when they adopted the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, declared the appointments signed by the
President on March 30, 1998 of Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta 1c-. They are
ordered to cease and desist from discharging the office of Judge of the Courts to
which they were respectively appointed on the said date. They come within the
operation of the prohibition on appointments. While the filling of judiciary
vacancies is in the public interest, there is no compelling reason to justify such
appointment within the 2 months appointment ban.

In view of Valenzuelaǯs oath taking, the authenticity of the letter of which was not
verified from the Office of the Court Administrator, SC reiterated the standing
practice and procedures in appointments to the Judiciary that originals of all
appointments are to be sent by the Office of the President to the Office of the Chief
Justice. The Clerk of Court of the SC, in the Chief Justiceǯs behalf, will advice the
appointee of their appointments as well as the date of commencement of the pre-
requisite orientation seminar to be conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy
for new judges.