002 - Digest in Re Valenzuela, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, Nov. 9, 1998

 

115 In re Valenzuela  [A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC. November 9, 1998 ] TOPIC: PONENTE: Narvasa, C.J.

AUTHOR: Avino Biano  NOTES: (if applicable) applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order) 1. The Presi President dent signed signed the appointm appointments ents of Hon. Mateo Mateo Valenzuela Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Placido Vallarta Vallarta as Judges Judges for RTCiBago City and Cabanatuan City respectively. But these appointments,according to Section 15, Article 7 of the constitution, were prohibited.  

Art.7 Sec.15 of the constitution reads:

months immedia immediately tely before before the next next preside presidentia ntiall election electionss and up up to th thee end of of his term, term, a Preside President nt or acting acting “Two months President shall not make appointments except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. ” 2. The iss issue ue was ventil ventilate ated d at th thee meeting meeting of the Judicia Judiciall and Bar Council Council on March 9, 1998. 1998. It is to discus discusss the constitutionality of appointments on the Court of Appeals in light of the forthcoming 1998 elections. Senior Associate Justice Florenz Regalado, Consultant of the Council and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, was in view that the election ban had no application to the appointments to the Court of Appeals based on the Commission ’s records. Without any further discussion, the JBC accepted this hypothesis and later submitted to the President for consideration together with the 8 nominations for vacancies in the Court of Appeals. 3. On April 6, 1998 the Chief Justice received received an official official communications communications from the the Executive Secretary transmitting transmitting  The appointments of 8 Associate Justices of CA and signed March 11, 1998 which is the day before the commencement of  the election ban and implies that the President’s office did not agree with the hypothesis. 4. on May 14, 1998, the chief justice received a letter from the president, addressed to the JBC request requesting ing transmission of  the “ list of final nominees “for the vacancy “no later than Wednesday, May 6 1998 in view of the 90 days imposed by the constitution constitutio n ( feb 13 1998 the date vacancy occurred) 5. On May 6 1998, CJ sent his reply to the President and stated that no sessions had been scheduled for the council after  May elections for reason that the President’s office did not share the view posited by the JBC that section 15 Article VII of  the constitution had no application to JBC-recommended appointments- the appointments to the court of appeals having  bee all uniformly dated dated March 11 1998. 6. However the Justice Sec. and regular members of the council had already taken action without awaiting the CJ’s reply. This made the CJ to call for a meeting on May 7 1998 and on this day the CJ received a message from the President. The  president expressed expressed the view that the election election ban provision(article provision(article VII, sec 15) applies only only to executive appo appointments. intments. The whole article being entitled “ Executive Department ”. The President posited that appointments in the Judiciary have special and specific provisions   Article 8 Section 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 Section 9   “The members of the Supreme Court and Judges in lower Courts shall be appointed by the president from the list of  atl atleas eastt th three ree no nomin minees ees prepar prepared ed by the Judici Judicial al and Bar Counci Councill for eve every ry vac vacanc ancy. y. Such Such app appoin ointme tments nts need need no confirmation.”

7. On May 12, CJ received from Malacanang the appointments appointments of two Judges of the aforementioned aforementioned RTC’s. Considering the pending proceedings on this matter, the court resolved by refraining the two appointed judges to have their oath taking.

 

However, Judge Valenzuela took oath in May 14 claiming that he did so without knowledge of the on-going deliberations. At that time, the originals of the appointments for both Judges had been sent to the CJ’s office and still in the latter’s office and had not been transmitted yet because of the issue of the validity of their appointments. The Judge did so because he received a copy of his appointment from Malacanang. 8.In construing Articles Articles 7 and 8; when there no presidential elections, elections, Art.8 shall apply where vacancies in th thee SC shall be filled within 90 days otherwise the president shall not make any appointments. The reason of which is not to tie the hands of the incoming president through midnight appointments. *include the lower lower court and appellate decision decision and ratio if applicable *include as well the respective contentions/ allegations of the petitioner(s) and respondent(s) ISSUE(S):Whether, during the period of the ban on appointments imposed by Art VII sec.15, the President 

is nonetheless required to ill vacancies in the Judiciary in view of Art VIII sec. 4(1) and 9, whether he make appointments to the judiciary during the period of the ban in the interest of public service HELD: the appointments appointments were declared VOID VOID RATIO:Article VII sec. 15means that the president is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so and Article VIII sec 4(1) and 9 means that the president is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames  provided

Appointments were undoubtedly made during the election ban, they are ordered to cease and desist from discharging the office of courts to which they were respectively appointed. They come within 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. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: DISSENTING/CONCURRING DISSENTING/CON CURRING OPINION(S):