Consti Case No.8 Art. VII Sec. 5 (Ban on Appointments) In Re Appointments dated March 30, 1998 of Hon.

Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Baguio City and Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively. Facts: The President appointed Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta as judges of the regional trial courts of Baguio City and Cabanatuan City respectively on March 30, 1998. This date is within the period of the ban against appointments as provided by Art. VII Sec. 5 of the Constitution which says: Art. VII Sec. 5 Two months immediately before the next Presidential elections up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointment, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice service or endanger public safety. Meanwhile on April 6, 1998, the Chief Justice received appointments of eight Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals all which had been signed on March 11, 1998 ( the day immediately before the the commencement of the ban on appointments imposed by Sec. 15, Art. VII). Impliedly, the Presidents Office did not agree with the hypothesis that appointments to the Judiciary is covered by the said ban and sought to fill the vacancy due to the retirement of Associate Justice Francisco. On May 4, 1998 the Chief Justice received a letter from the President, addressed to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) that the list of the final nominees for the vacancy be transmitted no later than May 6, 1998 in view of the duty imposed by the Constitution ArtVII Sec 4(1) which says that: The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice. *** Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. On May 6, 1998 the Chief Justice sent his reply to the President. He stated that no session had been scheduled for the Council until after the May elections and that the JBC will deliberate on the nominations upon the completion of the elections. On May 7, 1998 the President replied to the letter of the Chief Justice expressing that the election-ban provision (Art. VII Sec. 15) applies only to the appointments in the executive branch of government, the whole article being entitled Executive Department. He also observed that further proof of his theory is the fact that appointments to the judiciary have special, specific provisions applicable to them citing Art VIII Sec. 4(1) and Article VIII Sec. 9. On May 8, 1998 the Chief Justice replied to the letter which explains the issue plainly. He said that there is a serious question concerning the matter in light of the seemingly inconsistent provision of the Constitution. The first of these is Art. VII, Sec. 15 and Art. VIII, Sec. 4 (1). Sec. 15 imposes a direct prohibition on the President: he shall not make appointments within the period mentioned, and since there is no specification of which appointments are proscribed, the same may be considered as apply to all appointments of any kind and nature. This is the general rule then, the only exception being only as regards executive positions as to which temporary appointments may be made within the interdicted period when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. As the exception makes reference only to executive positions, it would seem that judicial positions are covered by the general rule. Normally, when there are no presidential elections, Section 4 (1) shall apply but when there are presidential elections the prohibition in Section 15 comes into play. These issues can properly be applied in the appointments of Hon. Valezuela and Hon. Vallarta whose nominations were received by the court on May 12, 1998. Another relevant provision of the Constitutions states:

Art. VIII, Sec. 9 The member of the Supreme Court and judges in lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominee prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for, every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. For the lowere courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list. Issue: Whether or not the appointment of the two judges to the RTC is prohibited by the Constitution as provided by Art. VII Sec. 15. Held: Yes it is prohibited. The appointments of Messrs. Valenzuela and Vallarta on March 30, 1998 were unquestionably made during the period of the ban provided by Art VII, Sec. 15. Art. VII, Section 15, it appears, is directed against two types of appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within two months preceding a Presidential election and are similar to the election offense of vote-buying as defined by the Omnibus Election Code: Sec 261(a) Vote-buying Any person who***gives or promises any office or employment*** in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate. The second refers to the appointments which are so-called midnight appointments. In Aytona v. Castillo, it was held that after the proclamation of Macapagal as President, President Garcia, who was defeated in his bid for reelection, became no more than a caretaker administrator whose duty was to prepare for the transfer of authority to the incoming President. Therefore, Garcias issuance of 350 appointments in one night is regarded as abuse of Presidential prerogatives and a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments. These midnight appointments are to be considered also in appointments of the Presidential election because these appointments are obviously made for partisan reasons.

By: Madz