Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

download Law Case Digests  supreme court en banc decisions  Philippine Constitutional Law

of 62

Transcript of Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    1/62

    Aytona vs Castillo Case DigestFACTS:On December 29, 1961, Carlos P. arcia, !"o !as still Presi#ent t"at time, ma#e last min$tea%%ointments !"ile t"e Commission on A%%ointments !as not in session. Sai# last min$te a%%ointmincl$#e# Domina#or &. Aytona, !"o !as a%%ointe# as a# interim overnor o' Central (an). T"e lattertoo) oat" on t"e same #ay.

    At noon on December *+, 1961, Presi#ent elect Dios#a#o -aca%agal ass$me# o''ice. e iss$e#

    A#ministrative Or#er /o. 2 on December *1, 1961 recalling, !it"#ra!ing an# canceling all a# interima%%ointments ma#e by Presi#ent arcia a'ter December 1*, 1961, !"ic" !as t"e #ate !"en -aca%agal!as %roclaime# Presi#ent by t"e Congress. e t"en a%%ointe# An#res 0. Castillo as a# interim overnoo' t"e Central (an) an# t"e latter $ali'ie# imme#iately.

    On an$ary 2, 1962, bot" e3ercise# t"e %o!ers o' t"eir o''ice. o!ever, Aytona !as %revente# 'rom"ol#ing o''ice t"e 'ollo!ing #ay an# t"$s instit$te# a $o !arranto %rocee#ing, c"allenging Castillo4srig"t to e3ercise t"e %o!ers o' t"e overnor o' t"e Central (an). Aytona claims t"at "e !as vali#lya%%ointe# an# "a# $ali'ie# 'or t"e %ost, t"ere'ore ma)ing Castillo4s a%%ointment voi#. Castillo t"enconten#e# t"at Aytona4s a%%ointment "a# alrea#y been revo)e# by A#ministrative Or#er /o. 2 iss$e# Presi#ent -aca%agal.

    5SS 7:

    8"et"er Presi#ent Dios#a#o -aca%agal "a# %o!er to iss$e t"e or#er o' cancellation o' t"e a# interima%%ointments ma#e by Presi#ent Carlos P. arcia even a'ter t"e a%%ointees "a# alrea#y $ali'ie#.

    & 5/ :

    %on t"e gro$n# o' se%aration o' %o!ers, t"e co$rt resolve# t"at it m$st #ecline an# re'$se $ris#ictionin #isregar#ing t"e Presi#ential A#ministrative Or#er /o. 2, canceling s$c" ;mi#nig"t< or ;last min$te26 is notanymore %resentB an# even i' it still e3ists, t"e $estione# la! still #enies t"ose entitle# to #$e %rocess o' la! 'or being$nreasonable an# o%%ressive. T"e intention o' t"e la! may be goo# !"en enacte#. T"e la! 'aile# to antici%ate t"e ini $ito$e''ects %ro#$cing o$trig"t in $stice an# ine $ality s$c" as t"e case be'ore $s.

    T"e SC a#o%te# t"e comment o' t"e Solicitor eneral !"o arg$e# t"at t"e O''s"ore (an)ing System an# t"e ForeignC$rrency De%osit System !ere #esigne# to #ra! #e%osits 'rom 'oreign len#ers an# investors an#, s$bse $ently, to give t"elatter %rotection. o!ever, t"e 'oreign c$rrency #e%osit ma#e by a transient or a to$rist is not t"e )in# o' #e%osit enco$ragby PD /os. 1+*> an# 1+* an# given incentives an# %rotection by sai# la!s beca$se s$c" #e%ositor stays only 'or a 'e!#ays in t"e co$ntry an#, t"ere'ore, !ill maintain "is #e%osit in t"e ban) only 'or a s"ort time. Consi#ering t"at (artelli is $stto$rist or a transient, "e is not entitle# to t"e %rotection o' Section 11* o' Central (an) Circ$lar /o. 96+ an# PD /o. 12>6against attac"ment, garnis"ment or ot"er co$rt %rocesses.F$rt"er, t"e SC sai#: ;5n 'ine, t"e a%%lication o' t"e la! #e%en#s on t"e e3tent o' its $stice. 7vent$ally, i' !e r$le t"at t"e$estione# Section 11* o' Central (an) Circ$lar /o. 96+ !"ic" e3em%ts 'rom attac"ment, garnis"ment, or any ot"er or#er or%rocess o' any co$rt, legislative bo#y, government agency or any a#ministrative bo#y !"atsoever, is a%%licable to a 'oreitransient, in $stice !o$l# res$lt es%ecially to a citi en aggrieve# by a 'oreign g$est li)e acc$se# reg (artelli. T"is !o$l#negate Article 1+ o' t"e /e! Civil Co#e !"ic" %rovi#es t"at ;in case o' #o$bt in t"e inter%retation or a%%lication o' la!s, it %res$me# t"at t"e la!ma)ing bo#y inten#e# rig"t an# $stice to %revail., 19@9, reg (artelli y /ort"cott, an American to$rist, coa3e# an# l$re# %etitioner =aren Salvacion, t"en 12years ol# to go !it" "im to "is a%artment. T"erein, reg (artelli #etaine# =aren Salvacion 'or 'o$r #ays, or $% to Febr$ary ?19@9 an# !as able to ra%e t"e c"il# once on Febr$ary >, an# t"ree times eac" #ay on Febr$ary , 6, an# ?, 19@9. OnFebr$ary ?, 19@9, a'ter %olicemen an# %eo%le living nearby, resc$e# =aren, reg (artelli !as arreste# an# #etaine# at t"e-a)ati -$nici%al ail. T"e %olicemen recovere# 'rom (artelli t"e 'ollo!ing items: 1. Dollar C"ec) /o. *6@, Control /o.+21+++6?@ 1166111*+*, S *,9+*.2+B 2. COCO(A/= (an) (oo) /o. 1+> 1+@? @ @ GPeso Acct. B *. Dollar Acco$nt HC"ina (an)ing Cor%., SIJAK >1+ +2@ 2B >. 5D 122 *+ @@??B . P"ili%%ine -oney GP2*>.++ cas"B 6. Door =eys 6?. St$''e# Doll GTe##y (ear $se# in se#$cing t"e com%lainant.F&O- ATTL. (ALA/5MM

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    3/62

    Salvacion vs. Central (an) o' t"e P"ili%%ines, C"ina (an)ing Cor%orationan# reg (artelli y /ort"cottG.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997Torres,r., ,:Facts:On Febr$ary > ?, 19@9, reg (artelli y /ort"cott, an American to$rist, #etaine# an# re%eate#ly ra%e#=arenSalvacion, a 12 year ol# t"e victim, in t"e a%artment o' t"e acc$se# in -a)ati City. T"at, on t"e >t"#ay o' #etention, =aren!as 'inally 'o$n# by t"e %olicemen a'ter a neig"bor "ear# "er crying an#screaming 'or "el%. T"e acc$se# !asimme#iately arreste# !it"in t"e %remises o' t"e b$il#ing, an#event$ally bro$g"t to -a)ati -$nici%al ail. A'ter t"oro$g" investigation an# me#ical e3amination, t"evictim, as re%resente# by "er %arents, toget"er !it" t"eFiscal 'ile# criminal cases against reg (artelli y/ort"cott 'or Serio$s 5llegal Detention an# 'or Fo$r G> co$nts o' &a%e.T"e %etitioners also 'ile# ase%arate civil action 'or #amages !it" %reliminary attac"ment against t"e acc$se# t"at "a#several #ollaacco$nts in COCO(A/= an# C"ina (an)ing Cor%oration. On Febr$ary 2>, 19@9, t"e #ay t"ere !asa"earing 'or (artelli4s %etition 'or bail t"e latter esca%e# 'rom ail.T"e #e%$ty s"eri'' serve# /otice o'arnis"ment on C"ina (an)ing Cor%oration b$t t"e latter #ecline# to '$rnis" aco%y as it invo)e# &.A./o. 1>+ . T"e s"eri'' again sent a letter stating t"at t"e garnis"ment #i# not violate t"e ban)secrecy la!as it !as legally ma#e by virt$e o' a co$rt or#er b$t C"ina (an)ing Cor%oration invo)e#Section 11* o' Central (an) Circ$lar /o. 96+, t"at #ollar acco$nts are e3em%t 'rom attac"ment,garnis"ment, or any ot"er or#er or %rocess o' any co$rt, legislative bo#y, government agency or anya#ministrative bo#y, !"atsoever. T"e Central (an) senta re%ly a'ter a #eman# 'rom t"e co$rt as)ing i' t"e Section 11* o' Central (an)Circ$lar /o.96+ is absol$te in nat$re o' !"ic" it re%lie# in a''irmative. A'ter t"e acc$se# !as #eclare# in#e'a$lt, t"e co$rt ren#ere# a $#gment in 'avor o' t"e %etitioners base# on t"e"eino$s acts o' t"eacc$se# an# t"e grave e''ects on social, moral an# %syc"ological as%ects on t"e %art o' t"e%etitionersC"ina (an)ing Cor%oration re'$se# t"e 8rit o' 73ec$tion o' t"e co$rt. T"$sBPetitioners 'ile a Petition 'or&elie' in t"e S$%reme Co$rt.Issues:8"et"er t"e #ollar acco$nts o' t"e Acc$se# is absol$tely e3em%t 'rom attac"ment, garnis"ment or anyot"er or#er or %rocess o' any co$rtHeld:8"ile it is tr$e t"at t"e %rotective cloa) o' con'i#entiality over 'oreign #e%osit acco$nts !o$l# better enco$rage t"in'lo!o' 'oreign c$rrency #e%osits, len#ing ca%acity o' t"e government an# !o$l# "el% 'inancial stability an#t"e national#evelo%ment, !"at !o$l# be t"e relie' o' someone claiming #amages against a %erson !it" 'oreign#e%osit acco$nts -ore so against a %erson !"o "eino$sly an# 'elonio$sly committe# an o''ense in t"e territory o't"e P"ili%%ines As in t"iscase, t"e acc$se# #eeme# liable 'or t"e #amages base# o' t"e "eino$s acts accor#ingto t"e testimonies o' t"e victiman# t"e !itnesses.5t is t"e #$ty o' t"e government to enco$rage 'oreign c$rrency#e%osits an# to com%ly by giving con'i#entiality b$t in t"ecorrect arg$ment o' t"e Solicitor eneral, 'oreignc$rrency #e%osits o' a to$rist or transient is not t"e one enco$rage# byPD /os. 1+*> an# 1*+ on t"e gro$n# t"atsai# acco$nts is tem%orary an# only 'or a s"ort %erio# o' time.T"e a%%lication o' t"e la! #e%en#s on t"e e3teno' its $stice. 5' !e r$le Section 11* o' Central (an) Circ$lar /o.96+!"ic" e3em%ts 'rom attac"ment, garnis"ment,or any ot"er or#er or %rocess o' any co$rt, legislative bo#y, governmentagency or any a#ministrative bo#y!"atsoever, is a%%licable to 'oreign transient , in $stice !o$l# res$lt es%ecially to aciti en aggrieve# by a 'oreigng$est li)e acc$se# reg (artelli. Article 1+ o' t"e /e! Civil Co#e %rovi#es t"at ;in case o' #o$bt in t"e inter%retation or a%%lication o' la!s, it is %res$me# t"at t"e la!ma)ing bo#y inten#e# rigan# $stice to %revail

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    4/62

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    5/62

    ITF vs COMELECFacts: On June 7, 1995, Congress passed Republic Act 8046, w ic aut ori!ed Co"elec to conduct a nationwide de"onstration o# aco"puteri!ed election s$ste" and allowed t e poll bod$ to pilot%test t e s$ste" in t e &arc 1996 elections in t e Autono"ous Region in&usli" &indanao 'AR&&()

    On October *9, *00*, Co"elec adopted in its Resolution 0*%0170 a "oderni!ation progra" #or t e *004 elections) +t resol ed toconduct biddings #or t e t ree '-( p ases o# its Auto"ated .lection /$ste" na"el$, ase + 2 3oter Registration and 3alidation /$ste"ase ++ 2 Auto"ated Counting and Can assing /$ste" and ase +++ 2 .lectronic rans"ission)

    On Januar$ *4, *00-, resident loria &acapagal%Arro$o issued . ecuti e Order o) 17*, w ic allocated t e su" o# *)5 billion to#und t e A./ #or t e &a$ 10, *004 elections) pon t e re uest o# Co"elec, s e aut ori!ed t e release o# an additional 500 "illion)

    On Januar$ *8, *00-, t e Co""ission issued an :+n itation to Appl$ #or .ligibilit$ and to ;id:)

    On &a$ *9, *00-, #i e indi iduals and entities 'including t e erein etitioners +n#or"ation ec nolog$ a"in Abalos /r) e$

    protested t e award o# t e Contract to Respondent & C :due to glaring irregularities in t e "anner in w ic t e bidding process ad beenconducted): Citing t erein t e nonco"pliance wit eligibilit$ as well as tec nical and procedural re uire"ents '"an$ o# w ic a e beendiscussed at lengt in t e etition(, t e$ soug t a re%bidding)

    Issue: ? et er t e bidding process was unconstitutional? et er t e awarding o# t e contract was unconstitutional

    ? et er t e petitioner as standing and ? et er t e petition is pre"ature)

    Held: [email protected].

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    6/62

    ? at t en was t e point o# conducting t e bidding, w en t e so#tware t at was t e sub>ect o# t e Contract was still to be created andcould concei abl$ undergo innu"erable c anges be#ore being considered as being in #inal #or"F

    +n iew o# awarding o# contract e public bidding s$ste" designed b$ Co"elec under its R< 'Re uest #or roposal #or t e Auto"ation o# t e *004 .lection("andated t e use o# a two%en elope, two%stage s$ste") A bidderDs #irst en elope '.ligibilit$ .n elope( was "eant to establis itseligibilit$ to bid and its uali#ications and capacit$ to per#or" t e contract i# its bid was accepted, w ile t e second en elope would be t e;id .n elope itsel#)

    e .ligibilit$ .n elope was to contain legal docu"ents suc as articles o# incorporation, business registrations, licenses and per"its,"a$orDs per"it, 3A certi#ication, and so #ort tec nical docu"ents containing docu"entar$ e idence to establis t e trac= record o# t e bidder and its tec nical and production capabilities to per#or" t e contract and #inancial docu"ents, including audited #inancialstate"ents #or t e last t ree $ears, to establis t e bidderDs #inancial capacit$)

    @owe er, t ere is no sign w atsoe er o# an$ >oint enture agree"ent, consortiu" agree"ent, "e"orandu" o# agree"ent, or business plan e ecuted a"ong t e "e"bers o# t e purported consortiu")/o, it necessaril$ #ollows t at, during t e bidding process, Co"elec ad no basis at all #or deter"ining t at t e alleged consortiu" reall$ e isted and was eligible and uali#ied and t at t e arrange"ents a"ong t e"e"bers were satis#actor$ and su##icient to ensure deli er$ on t e Contract and to protect t e go ern"entDs interest)

    +n iew o# standing On t e ot er and, petitioners 2 suing in t eir capacities as ta pa$ers, registered oters and concerned citi!ens 2 respond t at t eissues central to t is case are :o# transcendental i"portance and o# national interest): Allegedl$, Co"elecDs #lawed bidding anduestionable award o# t e Contract to an un uali#ied entit$ would i"pact directl$ on t e success or t e #ailure o# t e electoral process)

    us, an$ taint on t e sanctit$ o# t e ballot as t e e pression o# t e will o# t e people would ine itabl$ a##ect t eir #ait in t e de"ocratics$ste" o# go ern"ent) etitioners #urt er argue t at t e award o# an$ contract #or auto"ation in ol es disburse"ent o# public #unds ingargantuan a"ounts t ere#ore, public interest re uires t at t e laws go erning t e transaction "ust be #ollowed strictl$)

    &oreo er, t is Court as eld t at ta pa$ers are allowed to sue w en t ere is a clai" o# :illegal disburse"ent o# public #unds,: ** or i# public "one$ is being :de#lected to an$ i"proper purpose: *- or w en petitioners see= to restrain respondent #ro" :wasting public #undst roug t e en#orce"ent o# an in alid or unconstitutional law):

    +n iew o# pre"aturit$ e letter addressed to C air"an ;en>a"in Abalos /r) dated &a$ *9, *00- *8 ser es to eli"inate t e pre"aturit$ issue as it was anactual written protest against t e decision o# t e poll bod$ to award t e Contract) e letter was signed b$E#or, inter alia, two o# erein

    petitioners t e +n#or"ation ec nolog$ udicial inter ention):

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    7/62

    3oting pattern o# /upre"e Court Justicesttp EEwww)abs%cbnnews)co"Eresearc E10E*-E08E oting%pattern%supre"e%court%>usticesResearc b$ urple Ro"ero, abs%cbn .?/)co"E ewsbrea= Poste# at 1+J2*J2++@ ?:> P- %#ate# as o' 1+J2>J2++@ 9:>1 A-

    O$r s$rvey o' S$%reme Co$rt cases.

    RO%A &+ A +%A &+ OARCA/./ R3.G. H ro H Anti

    H oart

    uno 10 7 4 *1 47)6* --)-- 19)05Iuisu"bing 14 7 0 *1 66)67 --)-- 0)00Gnares%/antiago 4 16 1 *1 19)05 76)19 4)76Carpio 9 1* 1 *1 4*)86 57)14 4)76Austria 10 10 0 *0 50)00 50)00 0)00Corona 15 - 1 19 78)95 15)79 5)*6Carpio%&orales 10 11 0 *1 47)6* 5*)-8 0)00A!cuna 7 9 5 *1 --)-- 4*)86 *-)81inga 15 7 0 ** 68)18 -1)8* 0)00

    C ico% a!ario 1- - 1 17 76)47 17)65 5)883elasco 9 - 0 1* 75)00 *5)00 0)00

    ac ura 4 - 0 7 57)14 4*)86 0)00Re$es * * 0 4 50)00 50)00 0)00e Castro 4 0 0 4 100)00 0)00 0)00;rion - 0 0 - 100)00 0)00 0)001. Case: 5n'ormation Tec"nology Fo$n#ation o' t"e P"ili%%ines vs. Commission on 7lectionsDate o' #ecision: an$ary 1*, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #eclare# n$ll an# voi# t"e contracts a!ar#e# by t"e Commission on 7lections 'or t"e a$tomation o' t"e

    2++> elections.2. Case: A ( A (4 AA/ T&5(A ASSOC5AT5O/, 5/C.,vs. 05CTO& &A-OSDate o' #ecision: an$ary 2?, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt str$c) #o!n as $nconstit$tional t"e %rovisions o' &A ?9>2 or t"e -ining Act an# D7/& Or#er 96 >+ t"atallo!e# 'inancial tec"nical assistance agreements. 5t also voi#e# t"e FTAA bet!een 8estern -ining Cor%. P"ili%%ines an# t"e governme

    *. Case: SA/ A=AS 0S. 7 7C T507 S7C&7TA&LDate o' #ecision: Febr$ary *, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #ismisse# t"e %etitions assailing Proclamation /o. >2? an# eneral Or#er /o. >, !"ic" bot" #eclare# astate o' rebellion, as $nconstit$tional.

    >. Case: T7CSO/ 0S. CO--5SS5O/ O/ 7 7CT5O/S

    Date o' #ecision: -arc" *, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #ismisse# t"e %etitions see)ing to #is $ali'y Poe as a %resi#ential can#i#ate 'or allege#ly not being anat$ral born Fili%ino

    . Case: A ( A (4 AA/ T&5(A ASSOC5AT5O/, 5/C., 0S. 05CTO& &A-OSDate o' #ecision: December 1, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt reverse# its an$ary 2?, 2++> #ecision an# #eclare# as constit$tional t"e -ining Act o' 199 , D7/& 96 >+an# t"e FTAA bet!een 8-C P"ili%%ines an# t"e government

    6. Case: 7ST&ADA 0S. D7S57&TODate o' #ecision: December 9, 2++>S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt r$le# t"at t"e Co$rt o' A%%eals #i# not err in #ismissing 7stra#a4s %etition 'or certiorari 'or lac) o' $ri7stra#a 'ile# a motion 'or reconsi#eration at t"e a%%ellate co$rt $estioning a resol$tion o' t"e Omb$#sman !"ic" #ismisse# criminal

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    8/62

    c"arges against t"e (5& an# Citiban) o''icials !"o %lace# "is 'oreign c$rrency #e%osit on "ol#.

    ?. Case: 7 A&DA 0S. D7 CAST&ODate o' #ecision: -arc" *1, 2++S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #enie# De Castro4s motion 'or reconsi#eration an# a''irme# t"e $ris#iction o' t"e Presi#ential 7lectoralTrib$nal over egar#a4s %etition.

    @. Case: A(A=ADA $ro Party ist O''icer Samson Alcantara vs. 73ec$tive SecretaryDate o' #ecision: October 1@, 2++S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt $n)e# t"e motions 'or reconsi#eration 'ile# by Alcantara !"ic" $estione# t"e Se%tember 1, 2++ #ecisioo' t"e ig" Co$rt. 5n sai# #ecision, t"e SC #eclare# &A 9**? or t"e 0AT &e'orm Act as constit$tional.

    9. Case: P5-7/T7 0S. 7&-5TADate o' #ecision: October 1*, 2++S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt sa! no ab$se on t"e %art o' t"e %resi#ent !"en s"e ma#e a# interim a%%ointments as t"ese !ere ma#e#$ring recess o' Congress.

    1+. Case: &7P ( 5C OF T 7 P 5 5PP5/7S 0S. O/. 7/&5C= F. 5/ OLO/Date o' #ecision: December 19, 2++S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt grante# in %art t"e %etition by mo#i'ying ingoyon4s assaile# an$ary > an# or#ers, !"ic" %ro"ibite#government 'rom a!ar#ing concessions or leasing any %art o' /A5A * to ot"er %arties %en#ing its %ayment o' P* billion to P5ATCO. Co$rt also a''irme# ingoyons4 an$ary ? or#er, !"ic" a%%ointe# t"ree commissioners !"o !o$l# ascertain t"e amo$nt to be %ai# to

    P5ATCO 'or t"e /A5A * com%le3. 5t also li'te# its an$ary 1 T&O against ingoyon4s or#er 'or t"e com%ensation o' P5ATCO.

    11. Case: =5 SA/ -ALO /O 0S. /7DADate: A%ril 19, 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #eclare# 73ec$tive /o. >2+, !"ic" streamline# t"e 5D systems o' t"e government, as vali#.

    12. Case: DA/5 0S. S7/ ADate o' #ecision: A$g. 1 , 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #enie# t"e %etition, !"ic" so$g"t t"e invali#ation o' a %resi#ential #irective t"at %ro"ibite# %etitionersa%%earing in Congressional in $iries !it"o$t t"e %resi#ent4s consent.

    1*. Case: A-(5/O vs. CO-7 7CDate o' #ecision: Oct. 2 , 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #ismisse# t"e %etition, !"ic" $estione# CO-7 7C4s #ecision re'$ting t"e %etitioner4s a%%eal 'or a%lebiscite t"at !o$l# a$t"ori e a %eo%le4s initiative as instr$ment 'or c"arter c"ange.

    1>. Case: (ALA/ 0S. 7&-5TADate o' #ecision: A%ril 2 , 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #eclare# Calibrate# Preem%tive &es%onse as n$ll an# voi# as it goes against t"e %rinci%le o' ma3imtolerance an# en oine# t"e 73ec$tive, D5 an# P/P 'rom en'orcing it. ($t t"e ig" Co$rt r$le# t"at (atas Pambansa /o. @@+ remainsconstit$tional.

    1 . Case: 7 ercito vs. San#iganbayanDate o' #ecision: /ovember *+, 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt $%"el# San#iganbayan resol$tions !"ic" #enie# 0 7 ercito4s motion to $as" s$b%oenas t"at or#er t"e

    %ro#$ction o' #oc$ments abo$t ban) acco$nts in t"e 73%ort an# 5m%ort (an) an# PC5 7 $itable (an). 16. Case: S7/AT7 OF T 7 P 5 5PP5/7S 0S. 7&-5TADate: A%ril 2+, 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #eclare# %rovisions o' 7O >6> !"ic" allo!e# e3ec$tive #e%artment "ea#s to invo)e e3ec$tive %rivilegvali#.

    1?. Case: DA05D 0S. A&&OLODate o' #ecision: -ay *, 2++6S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt #eclare# PP1+1? constit$tional an# .O. /o. as vali#, b$t str$c) #o!n t"e arrest o' Davi# et al as$nconstit$tional.

    1@. Case: C A07N 0S. O/NA 7N

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    9/62

    Date o' #ecision: Febr$ary 1 , 2++@S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt n$lli'ie# statements 'rom De%artment o' $stice an# /ational Telecomm$nications Commission !"ic"%ro"ibite# t"e airing o' allege# !ireta%%e# conversations bet!een Pres. Arroyo an# 'ormer CO-7 7C Commissioner 0irgilio arcillano#$ring t"e -ay 2++> elections.

    19. Case: /7&5 0S. S7/AT7Date o' #ecision: -arc" 2 , 2++@S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt $%"el# t"e claim o' /eri to e3ec$tive %rivilege an# n$lli'ie# t"e Senate or#er !"ic" "el# "im in contem%also calle# 'or "is arrest 'or sn$bbing a Senate in $iry on t"e aborte# /(/ NT7 #eal.

    2+. Case: A=(ALA/ 0S. A 5/ODate o' #ecision: $ly 16, 2++@S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt r$le# t"at t"at t"e comm$nications covere# in t"e a%an P"ili%%ines 7conomic Partners"i% Agreemennot 'or %$blic #isclos$re as t"ey are covere# by e3ec$tive %rivilege

    21. Case: T"e Province o' Cotobato 0s. T"e ovUt o' t"e &e%$blic o' t"e P"ili%%inesDate o' #ecision: October 1>, 2++@S$mmary: T"e S$%reme Co$rt grante# t"e %etition an# #eclare# t"e -emoran#$m o' Agreement on Ancestral Domain $nconstit$tional

    SO &C7S:

    "tt%:JJ!!!.mylegis%inoy.comJ2++9J+6Jaytona vs castillo case #igest."tml

    "tt%:JJvb#ia .!or#%ress.comJ2+1*J+*J2@Jsalvacion vs central ban)J

    "tt%:JJ!!!.scrib#.comJ#ocJ1>>9 2>69JSalvacion vs Central (an)

    "tt%:JJengr "e .!or#%ress.comJ2+1*J+*J+6Jin'ormation tec"nology 'o$n#ation o' t"e %"ili%%ines vs commission on elecg r no 1 91*9 an$ary 1* 2++>J

    "tt%:JJnonamal$m.!eebly.comJ1J%ostJ2+1+J+?Jit' vs comelec gr no 1 91*9 an$ary 1* 2++>."tml

    "tt%:JJresearc"case#igest.blogs%ot.comJ2++?J+1J2++6 %olitical la! case #igests."tml

    http://www.mylegispinoy.com/2009/06/aytona-vs-castillo-case-digest.htmlhttp://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/salvacion-vs-central-bank/http://www.scribd.com/doc/144952469/Salvacion-vs-Central-Bankhttp://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/information-technology-foundation-of-the-philippines-vs-commission-on-elections-g-r-no-159139-january-13-2004/http://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/information-technology-foundation-of-the-philippines-vs-commission-on-elections-g-r-no-159139-january-13-2004/http://nonamalum.weebly.com/1/post/2010/07/itf-vs-comelec-gr-no-159139-january-13-2004.htmlhttp://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-political-law-case-digests.htmlhttp://www.mylegispinoy.com/2009/06/aytona-vs-castillo-case-digest.htmlhttp://vbdiaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/salvacion-vs-central-bank/http://www.scribd.com/doc/144952469/Salvacion-vs-Central-Bankhttp://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/information-technology-foundation-of-the-philippines-vs-commission-on-elections-g-r-no-159139-january-13-2004/http://engrjhez.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/information-technology-foundation-of-the-philippines-vs-commission-on-elections-g-r-no-159139-january-13-2004/http://nonamalum.weebly.com/1/post/2010/07/itf-vs-comelec-gr-no-159139-january-13-2004.htmlhttp://researchcasedigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/2006-political-law-case-digests.html
  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    10/62

    G.R. No. L-19313 Ja ua!" 19# 19$%

    &OMIN'&OR R. '(TON'# petitioner, s) 'N&RE) *. C')TILLO# ET 'L.# respondents)

    R . / O B + O )

    +ENG,ON# C.J.:

    ?it out pre>udice to t e subse uent pro"ulgation o# "ore e tended opinion, t e Court adopted toda$, t e #ollowing resolutions )

    On ece"ber *9, 1961, t en resident Carlos ) arcia appointed o"inador R) A$tona as ad interim o ernor o# t e Central ;an=) Ont e sa"e da$, t e latter too= t e corresponding oat )

    On ece"ber -0, 1961, at noon, resident%elect iosdado &acapagal assu"ed o##ice and on ece"ber -1, 1961, e issuedAd"inistrati e Order o) * recalling, wit drawing, and cancelling all ad interim appoint"ent "ade b$ resident arcia a#ter ece"ber1-, 1961, 'date w en e, &acapagal, ad been proclai"ed elected b$ t e Congress() On Januar$ 1, 196*, resident &acapagal appointedAndres 3) Castillo as ad interim o ernor o# t e Central ;an=, and t e latter uali#ied i""ediatel$)

    On Januar$ *, 196*, bot appointed e ercised t e powers o# t eir o##ice, alt oug Castillo in#or"ed A$tona o# is title t ereto and so"eunpleasantness de eloped in t e pre"ises o# t e Central ;an=) @owe er, t e ne t da$ and t erea#ter, A$tona was de#initel$ pre ented#ro" olding o##ice in t e Central ;an=)

    /o, e instituted t is proceeding w ic is practicall$, a quo warranto , c allenging CastilloDs rig t to e ercise t e powers o# o ernor o#t e Central ;an=) A$tona clai"s e was alidl$ appointed, ad uali#ied #or t e post, and t ere#ore, t e subse uent appoint"ent anduali#ication o# Castillo was oid, because t e position was t en occupied b$ i") Castillo replies t at t e appoint"ent o# A$tona ad

    been re o=ed b$ Ad"inistrati e Order o) * o# &acapagal and so, t e real issue is w et er t e new resident ad power to issue t e

    order o# cancellation o# t e ad interim appoint"ents "ade b$ t e past resident, e en a#ter t e appointees ad alread$uali#ied) 1wph1.t

    e record s ows t at resident arcia sent to t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents 2 w ic was not t en in session 2 a co""unicationdated ece"ber *9, 1961, sub"itting :#or con#ir"ation: ad interim appoint"ents o# assistant director o# lands, councilors, "a$ors,"e"bers o# t e pro incial boards, #iscals, >ustices o# t e peace, o##icers o# t e ar"$, etc) and t e na"e o# o"inador R) A$tona aso ernor o# t e Central ;an= occupies nu"ber 45, between a >ustice o# t e peace and a colonel o# t e Ar"ed udges o# #irst instance, "e"bers o# pro incial boards, and boards o# go ern"ent corporations, #iscals,

    >ustice o# t e peace, e en one associate >ustice o# t is Court occup$ing position o) 8 and two associate >ustices o# t e Court o# Appeals '9

    and 10( between an assistant o# t e /olicitor% eneralDs O##ice, and t e c air"an o# t e board o# ta appeals o# asa$ Cit$, w o in turn are#ollowed b$ >udges o# #irst instance, and inserted between t e latter is t e na"e o# anot er associate >ustice o# t e Court o# Appeals)

    ere were ot er appoint"ents t us sub"itted b$ resident arcia on t at date, ece"ber *9, 1961) All in all, about t ree undred #i#t$'-50( :"idnig t: or :last "inute: appoint"ents)

    +n re o=ing t e appoint"ents, resident &acapagal is said to a e acted #or t ese and ot er reasons '1( t e outgoing resident s oulda e re#rained #ro" #illing acancies to gi e t e new resident opportunit$ to consider na"es in t e lig t o# is new policies, w ic wereappro ed b$ t e electorate in t e last elections '*( t ese scandalousl$ urried appoint"ents in "ass do not #all wit in t e intent and spirito# t e constitutional pro ision aut ori!ing t e issuance o# ad interim appoint"ents '-( t e appoint"ents were irregular, i""oral andun>ust, because t e$ were issued onl$ upon t e condition t at t e appointee would i""ediatel$ uali#$ ob iousl$ to pre ent a recall orre ocation b$ t e inco"ing resident, wit t e result t at t ose deser ing o# pro"otion or appoint"ent w o pre#erred to be na"ed b$ t enew resident declined and were b$%passed and '4( t e abnor"al conditions surrounding t e appoint"ent and uali#ications e inced adesire on t e part o# t e outgoing resident "erel$ sub ert t e policies o# t e inco"ing ad"inistration)

    +t is ad"itted t at "an$ o# t e persons "entioned in t e co""unication to t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents dated ece"ber *9, 1961,did not uali#$) ere is e idence t at in t e nig t o# ece"ber *9, t ere was a scra"ble in &alaca an o# candidates #or positions tr$ingto get t eir written appoint"ents or a ing suc appoint"ents c anged to "ore con enient places, a#ter so"e last "inute bargaining)ere was unusual urr$ in t e issuance o# t e appoint"ents 2 w ic were not coursed t roug t e epart"ent @eads 2 and in t e

    con#usion, a wo"an appointed >udge was designated :&r): and a "an was designated :&ada"): One appointee w o got is appoint"entand was re uired to uali#$, resorted to t e rus o# as=ing per"ission to swear be#ore a relati e o##icial, and t en ne er uali#ied)

    ?e are in#or"ed, it is &alaca anDs practice 2 w ic we #ind to be logical 2 to sub"it ad interim appoint"ents onl$ w en t eCo""ission on Appoint"ents is in session) One good reason #or t e practice is t at onl$ t ose w o a e accepted t e appoint"ent anduali#ied are sub"itted #or con#ir"ation) e ert eless, t is ti"e, &alaca an sub"itted its appoint"ents on the same day t e$ were issuedand t e Co""ission was not t en in session ob iousl$ because it #oresaw t e possibilit$ t at t e inco"ing resident would re#use tosub"it later t e appointees o# is predecessor) As a result, as alread$ ad erted to, so"e persons w ose na"es were sub"itted #orcon#ir"ation ad not uali#ied nor accepted t eir appoint"ents)

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    11/62

    ;ecause o# t e aste and irregularities, so"e >udges o# #irst instance uali#ied #or districts w erein no acancies e isted, because t eincu"bents ad not uali#ied #or ot er districts to w ic t e$ ad been supposedl$ trans#erred or pro"oted)

    Re#erring speci#icall$ to >udges w o ad not uali#ied, t e course o# conduct adopted b$ ustice, &oran was tendered an ad interim appoint"ent t ereto

    b$ resident Iuirino, a#ter t e latter ad lost t e election to resident &agsa$sa$, and be#ore lea ing t e residenc$) /aid A"bassadordeclined to uali#$ being o# t e opinion t at t e "atter s ould be le#t to t e inco"ing newl$%elected resident)

    O# course, nobod$ will assert t at resident arcia ceased to be suc earlier t an at noon o# ece"ber -0, 1961) ;ut it is co""on senseto belie e t at a#ter t e procla"ation o# t e election o# resident &acapagal, is was no "ore t an a :care%ta=er: ad"inistration) @e wasdut$ bound to prepare #or t e orderl$ trans#er o# aut orit$ t e inco"ing resident, and e s ould not do acts w ic e oug t to =now,

    would e"barrass or obstruct t e policies o# is successor) e ti"e #or debate ad passed t e electorate ad spo=en) +t was not #or i" touse powers as incu"bent resident to continue t e political war#are t at ad ended or to a ail i"sel# o# presidential prerogati es to ser e partisan purposes) e #illing up acancies in i"portant positions, i# #ew, and so spaced to a##ord so"e assurance o# deliberate action andcare#ul consideration o# t e need #or t e appoint"ent and t e appointeeDs uali#ications "a$ undoubtedl$ be per"itted) ;ut t e issuance o#-50 appoint"ents in one nig t and planned induction o# al"ost all o# t e" a #ew ours be#ore t e inauguration o# t e new resident "a$,wit so"e reason, be regarded b$ t e latter as an abuse residential prerogati es, t e steps ta=en being apparentl$ a "ere partisan e##ort to#ill all acant positions1 irrespecti e o# #itness and ot er conditions, and t ereb$ depri e t e new ad"inistration o# an opportunit$ to "a=et e corresponding appoint"ents)

    or"all$, w en t e resident "a=es appoint"ents t e consent o# t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents, e as bene#it o# t eir ad ice) ? ene "a=es ad interim appoint"ents, e e ercises a special prerogati e and is bound to be prudent to insure appro al o# is selection eit er

    pre ious consultation wit t e "e"bers o# t e Co""ission or b$ t erea#ter e plaining to t e" t e reason suc selection) ? ere,owe er, as in t is case, t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents t at will consider t e appointees is di##erent #ro" t at e isting at t e ti"e o#t e appoint"ent*and w ere t e na"es are to be sub"itted b$ successor, w o "a$ not w oll$ appro e o# t e selections, t e residents ould be doubly careful in e tending suc appoint"ents) ow, it is ard to belie e t at in signing -50 appoint"ents in one nig t,resident arcia e ercised suc :double care: w ic was re uired and e pected o# i" and t ere#ore, t ere see"s to be #orce to t econtention t at t ese appoint"ents #all be$ond t e intent and spirit o# t e constitutional pro ision granting to t e . ecuti e aut orit$ toissue ad interim appoint"ents)

    nder t e circu"stances abo e described, w at wit t e separation o# powers, t is Court resol es t at it "ust decline to disregard t eresidential Ad"inistrati e Order o) *, cancelling suc :"idnig t: or :last%"inute: appoint"ents)

    O# course, t e Court is aware o# "an$ precedents to t e e##ect t at once an appoint"ent as been issued, it cannot be reconsidered,speciall$ w ere t e appointee as uali#ied) ;ut none o# t e" re#er to "ass ad interim appoint"ents 't ree% undred and #i#t$(, issued int e last ours o# an outgoing C ie# . ecuti e, in a setting si"ilar to t at outlined erein) On t e ot er and, t e aut orities ad"it o#e ceptional circu"stances >usti#$ing re ocation- and i# an$ circu"stances >usti#$ re ocation, t ose described erein s ould #it t ee ception)

    +ncidentall$, it s ould be stated t at t e underl$ing reason #or den$ing t e power to re o=e a#ter t e appointee as uali#ied is t e latterDse uitable rig ts) Get it is doubt#ul i# suc e uit$ "ig t be success#ull$ set up in t e present situation, considering t e rus conditionalappoint"ents, urried "aneu ers and ot er appenings detracting #ro" t at degree o# good #ait , "oralit$ and propriet$ w ic #or" t e

    basic #oundation o# clai"s to e uitable relie#) e appointees, it "ig t be argued, wittingl$ or unwittingl$ cooperated wit t e stratage"to beat t e deadline, w ate er t e resultant conse uences to t e dignit$ and e##icienc$ o# t e public ser ice) eedless to sa$, t ere areinstances w erein not onl$ strict legalit$, but also #airness, >ustice and rig teousness s ould be ta=en into account)

    [email protected]"ent and discretion in t e "atter, ereb$ dis"iss t e action, wit out costs)

    Labrador, Reyes, J. .L., !aredes and "e Leon, J.J., concur.

    )e a!ate O i io s

    '&ILL'# J., concurring

    Once "ore t is Court as to pass upon and deter"ine a contro ers$ t at calls #or an interpretation o# t e pro isions o# t e Constitution)e #acts t at ga e rise to t e petition need not be restated as t e$ are set #ort in opinion rendered #or t e Court) e uestion is w et er

    t e appoint"ent o# a person to a public o##ice b$ a resident w ose ter" o# o##ice was about to e pire or cease is law#ul or does notcontra ene t e Constitution or, i# law#ul a#ter t e appointee as ta=en is oat , until w en would suc appoint"ent be alid and e##ecti e)e constitutional point in ol ed see"s to a e been o erloo=ed t e #ra"ers o# t e Constitution) +t would see" t at t e #ra"ers, well%

    "eaning persons t at t e$ were, ne er #oresaw an e entualit$ suc as t e one con#ronting t e Republic) e #ra"ers ne er t oug t andanticipated t at citi!en ele ated b$ t e people to suc an e alted o##ice t e resident o# t e Republic, would per#or" an act w ic t ougnot e pressl$ pro ibited b$ t e Constitution and t e law, oug t not to be done, since a sense o# propriet$ would be enoug to stop i"#ro" per#or"ing it)

    e petitioner in o=es section 10, paragrap 4, article 3++, o# t e Constitution w ic pro ides t at 2

    e resident s all a e t e power to "a=e appoint"ents during t e recess o# t e Congress, but suc appoint"ents s all bee##ecti e onl$ until disappro al b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents or until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# t e Congress)

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    12/62

    nder t ese constitutional pro isions t ere see"s to be no doubt t at t e resident "a$ "a=e t e appoint"ent, and i# appro ed b$ t eCo""ission on Appoint"ents, it would un uestionabl$ be law#ul, alid and e##ecti e, but i# disappro ed or not acted upon b$ t eCo""ission on Appoint"ents t en t e appoint"ent beco"es ine##ectual and t e appointee ceases and can no longer per#or" t e duties o#t e o##ice to w ic e ad been appointed)

    +t is urged t at t e petitionerDs appoint"ent a ing been "ade b$ t e resident during t e recess o# t e Congress and e a ing ta=en isoat , t e appoint"ent is law#ul, alid and e##ecti e until disappro al b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents or until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o#t e Congress s ould t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents #ail to act on it)

    #d interim appoint"ents t at t e resident "a$ "a=e during t e recess o# t e Congress are t ose "ade during a period o# ti"e #ro" t ead>ourn"ent o# t e Congress to t e opening session, regular or special, o# t e sa"e Congress) +n ot er words, i# t e resident ad

    con ened in a special session t e #ourt Congress w ose ter" was to e pire on t e -0t o# ece"ber 1961 and during suc session t einterim appoint"ents ad been con#ir"ed b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents t ere would be little doubt t at t e appoint"ents would belaw#ul and alid)

    e go ern"ent establis ed b$ t e Constitution is one o# c ec=s and balances to preclude and pre ent arrogation o# powers b$ o##icerselected or appointed under it)

    nder t e pro isions o# t e Constitution : e ter" o# o##ice o# /enators s all be si $ears and s all begin on t e t irtiet da$ o#ece"ber ne t #ollowing t eir election):1 And : e ter" o# o##ice o# t e &e"bers o# t e @ouse o# Representati es s all be #our $earsand s all begin on t e t irtiet da$ o# ece"ber ne t #ollowing t eir election):* nder section 10, paragrap 4, article 3++, o# t eConstitution, abo e uoted, t e resident "a$ "a=e appoint"ents during t e recess o# t e Congress, :but suc appoint"ents s all bee##ecti e onl$ until disappro al b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents or until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# t e Congress): )

    e ter" :recess:, in its broadest sense, "eans and re#ers to t e inter ening period between ad>ourn"ent o# a regular session o# oneundred da$s e clusi e o# /unda$s, or o# a /pecial session w ic cannot continue longer t an t irt$ da$s, and t e con ening t ereo# inregular session once e er$ $ear on t e #ourt &onda$ o# Januar$ or in special session to consider general legislation or onl$ suc sub>ectsas e 't e resident( "a$ designate)-And suc inter ening period re#ers to t e sa"e Congress t at ad ad>ourned and was to be con ened)/uc inter ening period cannot re#er to two di##erent Congresses, one t at as ad>ourned and one newl$ c osen or elected to "eet inregular session as pro ided #or b$ t e Constitution, or in special session b$ t e call o# t e resident)

    e ter" o# t e resident ))) s all end at noon t e t irtiet da$ o# ece"ber #ollowing t e e piration #our $ears a#ter ' is(election and t e ter" o# ' is( successor s all begin #ro" suc ti"e)4

    +# t e ad interim appoint"ents "ade b$ t e resident during t e recess o# t e Congress are e##ecti e onl$ until disappro al b$ t eCo""ission on Appoint"ents or until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# t e Congress 2 a li"itation on t e power o# t e resident 2 t ere is acogent and strong reason #or olding to be t e intent o# t e #ra"ers o# t e Constitution t at suc appoint"ents "ade b$ i" ceased to bealid and e##ecti e a#ter t e ter" o# t e Congress e isting at t e ti"e o# t e "a=ing o# suc appoint"ents ad ended or e pired) e endor e piration o# t e o# t e Congress e isting at t e ti"e o# t e "a=ing o# t e ad interim appoint"ents b$ t e resident is a stronger causeor reason #or t e lapse or ine##ectualit$ o# suc appoint"ents t an :t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# t e Congress): /ince t at Congress no longer

    e ists and ence can no longer con ene and t en :ad>ourn): e e##ecti it$ and alidit$ o# t e appoint"ent o# t e petitioner as o ernoro# t e Central ;an= ceased, lapsed and e pired on t irtiet o# ece"ber 1961) @e is no longer entitled old t e o##ice to w ic e ad

    been appointed) &$ ote, t ere#ore, is #or t e denial o# t e petition)

    "i$on, J., concurs.

    + concur wit t e #oregoing concurring opinion o# Justice adilla, t e sa"e being based on an additional ground >usti#$ing denial o# t e petition under consideration)

    +'/TI)T' 'NGELO# J., concurring )

    +n addition to t e reasons stated in t e resolution adopted b$ t is Court on Januar$ 19, 196*, + wis to e press t e #ollowing iews )

    1) e :"idnig t appoint"ents: "ade b$ resident arcia were e tended b$ i" under /ection 10, aragrap 4, Article 3++ o# t eConstitution w ic pro ides : e resident s all a e t e power to "a=e appoint"ents during t e recess o# t e Congress, but sucappoint"ents s all be e##ecti e onl$ until disappro al b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents or until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# t eCongress): +t is clear t at t ese appoint"ents can onl$ be "ade during t e recess o# Congress because t e$ are ad interim appoint"ents)

    e ter" :recess: as a de#inite legal "eaning) +t "eans t e inter al between a session o# Congress t at as ad>ourned and anot er o# t esa"e Congress) +t does not re#er to t e inter al between t e session o# one Congress and t at o# anot er) +n t at case t e inter al is notre#erred to as a :recess: but an ad>ourn"ent sine die ) us, in t e case o# ipton ) ar=er, 71 Ar=) 194, t e court said : e DrecessD erere#erred to b$ Judge Coole$ "eans t e inter"ission between sittings o# t e sa"e bod$ at its regular or ad>ourned session, and not to t einter al between t e #inal ad>ourn"ent o# one bod$ and t e con ening o# anot er at t e ne t regular session) ? en applied to a legislati e

    bod$, it "eans a te"porar$ dis"issal, and not an ad>ourn"ent sine die ): /ince t e appoint"ents in uestion were "ade a#ter t e ourned sine die and ceased to #unction on ece"ber -0, 1961, t e$ cannot parta=e o# t e nature o#interim appoint"ents wit in t e "eaning o# t e Constitution)

    *) e Co""ission on Appoint"ents under our constitutional set%up is not continuing bod$ but one t at co%e ists wit t e Congress t atas created it) is is so because said Co""ission is a creation o# t e /enate and o# t e @ouse o# Representati es) ? ile t e /enate is acontinuing bod$, t e @ouse ceases at t e end o# its #ourt $ear) +t cannot t ere#ore be continuing it being a creation o# a bod$ al# o# w ic

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    13/62

    is ali e and t e ot er al# as ceased to e ist) is t eor$ can also be gleaned #ro" t e proceedings o# t e constitutional con ention)

    us, t e preli"inar$ dra#t o# t e ilippine Constitution pro ides #or a per"anent Co""ission and #or t e olding o# sessions o# t eCo""ission e en during t e recess o# Congress) A#ter "ature deliberation t e proposal was de#eated and a substitute was adopted w icis now e"bodied in Article 3+, /ection 1*, o# our Constitution) As a "atter o# #act, as #inall$ adopted, t e Co""ission on Appoint"entsas to be organi!ed upon t e con ening o# a new Congress a#ter t e election o# t e /pea=er o# t e @ouse o# Representati es or o# t eresident o# t e /enate, as t e case "a$ be, as pro ided #or in /ection 1-, Article 3+ o# t e Constitution 'Article 3++, reli"inar$ ra#t o#t e Constitution, 3ol) *, Aruego e ourn"ent o# t e Congress: '/ection 10, aragrap 4, Article 3++() is "ean t at it "ust be sub"ittedto t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents o# t e Congress t at as created it) +t cannot be sub"itted to t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents o# adi##erent Congress) /ince t e appoint"ents in uestion were sub"itted to t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents w ic ceased to #unction onece"ber -0, 1961, t e$ lapsed upon t e cessation o# said Co""ission) Conse uentl$, t e$ can be recalled b$ t e new C ie# . ecuti e)

    -) An ad interim appoint"ent is not co"plete until t e appointee ta=es t e oat o# o##ice and actuall$ ta=es possession o# t e position orenters upon t e disc arge o# its duties) e "ere ta=ing o# t e oat o# o##ice wit out actual assu"ption o# o##ice is not su##icient toconstitute t e appointee t e actual occupant t ereo# w o "a$ not be re"o ed t ere#ro" e cept #or cause '&cC esne$ ) /a"pson, *-/)?) *d) 584() e case o# %ummers &. '$aeta , 81 il), 754, cannot be cited as a precedent as to w en an ad interim appoint"en

    beco"es per"anent and binding) at case in ol es a cadastral >udge w o was gi en an ad interim appoint"ent as >udge at large) A#terassu"ing t e o##ice and disc arging is duties, is appoint"ent was not con#ir"ed) @e clai"ed t at e could still re ert to is #or"er

    position as cadastral >udge) rue, t is Court "ade a state"ent t erein t at an ad interim appoint"ent beco"es per"anent a#ter ta=ing t eoat o# o##ice, but suc state"ent is "erel$ an obiter dictum because t e case could a e been decided on t e doctrine t at, a ingaccepted an inco"patible o##ice, petitioner was dee"ed to a e abandoned t e position o# cadastral >udge)

    +n rel$ing on certain cases #or t e proposition t at once an appointee as ta=en t e oat o# o##ice is appoint"ent beco"es irre ocable petitioner #ails to consider t at in said cases t ere ad eit er been an actual disc arge o# dut$ and actual p $sical possession or assu"ptiono# o##ice #ollowing t e oat %ta=ing as to constitute t e appointee t e occupant o# t e position #ro" w ic e cannot be re"o ed wit outcause) . en t e case o# (arbury &. (adison , 1 Cranc , )/) 1-7, * B) .d), 61, 69, cannot be in o=ed as a precedent, #or t ere t eappointees were "erel$ no"inated and t eir no"inations con#ir"ed b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents e en i# t e$ a e later ta=ent eir oat o# o##ice) Certainl$, t e$ can no longer be depri ed o# t eir appoint"ents #or t en t e e ecuti e would be acting in disregard o#t e con#ir"ing bod$ w ic is a coordinate and independent bod$ not sub>ect to is control)

    /ince t e appoint"ents in uestion were "ade not in t e lig t o# t e iews erein e pressed, + a" o# t e opinion t at t e$ did not ripeninto alid and per"anent appoint"ents and as suc were properl$ recalled b$ t e new C ie# . ecuti e)

    CONCE CION# J., concurring in part and dissenting in part )

    +t is well settled t at t e granting o# writs o# pro ibition and mandamus is ordinaril$ wit in t e sound discretion o# t e courts, to be

    e ercised on e uitable principles, and t at said writs s ould be issued w en t e rig t to t e relie# is clear '55 C)J)/) *5, *9, 7- C)J)/) 18()+nso#ar as t e "a>orit$ resolution relied upon discretion and t e e uities o# t e case in den$ing said writs, + concur, t ere#ore, in t ea#ore"entioned resolution)

    @owe er, + cannot see "$ wa$ clear to subscribing t e obser ations t erein "ade representing t e "oti es allegedl$ underl$ing petitionerDs appoint"ent and t at o# "an$ ot ers w o are not parties in t is case, and >usti#$ing t e re ocation o# suc appoint"ents) &$reasons, a"ong ot ers, are )

    1) /a e w ere t e incu"bent as a te"porar$ appoint"ent or is re"o able at t e will o# t e appointing power, an appoint"ent onceco"plete, b$ t e per#or"ance o# all acts re uired b$ law o# t e appointing power, is irre ocable)

    An appoint"ent to o##ice "a$ be re o=ed at an$ ti"e be#ore t e appoint"ent beco"es #inal and co"plete, but t erea#ter unlesst e appointee is re"o able at t e will o# appointing power)

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    14/62

    &a$ an appoint"ent be re o=ed b$ reason o# error or #raudF is uestion was ta=en up in . rel )oo*an &s. arbour '** A 686( and .rel %cofield &s. %tarr '6- A 51*() e #irst in ol ed a Cit$ C arter pro iding t at its co""on council s all, in >oint con ention, appoint a

    prosecuting attorne$) +n suc con ention, Coogan obtained a "a>orit$ o# t e otes cast and o# t e con ention) pon announce"ent o# t isresult, a "e"ber o# t e con ention o##ered a resolution declaring Coogan elected, but t e resolution was de#eated) en, two resolutionswere o##ered and appro ed one declaring t at t e ballots ta=en were null and o# no e##ect b$ reason o# errors in t e sa"e and anot erdeclaring ;arbour elected prosecuting attorne$) e issue was w o ad been appointed t ereto) e court eld t at it was Coogan, ea ing obtained a clear "a>orit$ and t ere a ing been no error or #raud in t e oting, alt oug it did not den$ t e power o# t econ ention to correct errors and to nulli#$ t e e##ects o# #raud in t e oting b$ in alidating t e sa"e and calling anot er election, ad t e

    proceedings been tainted wit suc error or #raud)

    e second case re#erred to a si"ilar pro ision in a cit$ c arter, to t e e##ect t at appoint"ents b$ t e co""on council s all be b$ ballotand t at t e person recei ing a pluralit$ o# ballots s all be elected) e #irst balloting ta=en #or t e election o# t e cit$ sur e$or o#;rigeport resulted in *5 ballots being cast) +t was announced t at t ere was one ballot "ore t an "e"bers oting, and t at t ere were 1-

    ballots #or /co#ield, 11 #or /tarr and one blan= ballot) /co#ield "aintained t at t is result a"ounted to is appoint"ent precluding t ecouncil #ro" ta=ing a new ballot but suc pretense was re>ected) +nas"uc as t e nu"ber o# ballots cast e ceeded t e nu"ber o# personsoting, t e council was >usti#ied in belie ing t at t e proceeding was not #ree #ro" suspicion o# #raud or "ista=e in t e oting and,accordingl$ in ta=ing anot er ote)

    +n bot cases, t e #raud or "ista=e alluded to re#erred to t e "anner o# oting or o# counting t e ballots cast, not to t e intent o# t e otersin c oosing a particular appointee)

    *) An ad interim appoint"ent, "ade during a recess o# Congress, is co"plete and irre ocable upon t e per#or"ance o# t e last act re uired b$ law #ro" t e appointing power, e en wit out pre ious notice to t e appointee, or acceptance b$ i", or wit out subse uent action o#t e legislati e organ t at "a$ ter"inate its e##ecti it$)

    +n t e case o# appoint"ent "ade b$ a single e ecuti e suc as a go ernor, "a$or, etc), it is undisputed t at t e appoint"ent once"ade is irre ocable)

    ? ere an appoint"ent sub>ect to con#ir"ation b$ t e senate is "ade b$ a go ernor during a recess o# t e senate, ))) t e uestionarises as to w et er suc an appoint"ent "a$ be reconsidered and wit drawn b$ t e go ernor be#ore it is acted upon b$ t e/enate)

    +n arrett &. "uff '19*-( 114 Kan) **0, *17 ac) 918, w ere appoint"ents "ade b$ t e go ernor during a recess o# t elegislature, w ic appoint"ents could not be con#ir"ed b$ t e senate as re uired b$ law until t e ne t session o# t at bod$, werere o=ed b$ t e go ernorDs successor, and ot er persons were appointed to t e o##ices, suc action b$ i" being ta=en a#ter t esenate ad con ened and ad ta=en under ad ise"ent t e con#ir"ation o# t e persons #irst appointed to t e o##ices, but be#ore t esenate ad ta=en an$ de#inite action wit regard to suc con#ir"ation, and t e senate, con#ir"ed t e #irst appointee, but, despitet is act o# t e senate, co""issions were issued b$ t e go ernor to t e second appointee, it was eld, in reliance upon t e ter"s o#t e statutes w ic pro ided t at t e go ernor s ould DappointD persons to suc o##ices wit t e ad ice and consent o# t e senate, asdistinguis ed #ro" t e pro ision o# t e Constitution o# t e nited /tates go erning appoint"ents b$ t e resident, w ic

    pro ides t at t e resident s all Dno"inateD and, b$ and wit t e ad ice and consent o# t e senate, s all DappointD persons to o##ice,t at t e act o# t e go ernor in "a=ing t e first appoint"ents was final and e+hausted t e power o# t e go ernorDs o##ice in t atregard unless and until the appointments were re ected by the senate , and t at, t ere#ore, t e persons appointed by the first

    *o&ernor were entitled to t e o##ice) +n t e words o# t e court, D e power o# t e go ernor a ing been e ercised, e ad no#urt er power o# t e go ernor a ing been e ercised, e ad no #urt er control o er t e respecti e o##ices unless and until t eappointees ad been re>ected b$ t e senate)D +n reac ing t is result, t e court e"p asi!ed t e di##erence between a no"ination andan appoint"ent, olding t at, w ere t e statute relating to appoint"ents b$ t e go ernor wit t e consent o# t e senate pro idest at t e go ernor s all appoint persons to t e o##ice wit t e consent o# t e senate, rat er t an "erel$ no"inate persons #orconsideration b$ t e senate, the appointment is final and conclusi&e without confirmation. ))) )

    Bi=ewise in (c)hesney &. %ampson '19-0( *-* K$ -95, *- /)?) '*d)( 584, t e act o# go ernor in "a=ing a recess appoint"entwas eld to be not merely a nomination sub>ect to re ocation b$ t e go ernor at an$ ti"e prior to action t ereon b$ t e senate, but a final and irre&ocable appoint"ent sub ect only to re ection by the senate. +n support o# t is result, it was said D+t is urgedt at appoint"ent to t e o##ice consists o# two separate acts, one b$ t e go ernor and one b$ t e senate, and until bot a e actedt ere is no appoint"ent suc as to bring t e incu"bent wit in t e protection o# t e law) . en so, t e two powers do not actconcurrentl$, but consecuti el$, and action once ta=en and co"pleted b$ t e e ecuti e is not sub>ect to reconsideration orrecall) ))) e #act t at t e title to t e o##ice, and t e tenure o# t e o##icer, are sub>ect to t e action o# t e senate, does not renderinco"plete t e act o# t e c ie# e ecuti e in "a=ing t e appoint"ent) -he appointment alone confers upon the appointee for thetime bein* the ri*ht to ta e and hold the office, and constitutes the last act respectin* the matter to be performed by the e+ecuti&e

    power./ .

    +n eople e rel) yder &. (i$ner '1857( 7 Cal) 519, in olding t at an appoint"ent "ade b$ a go ernor to #ill an o##ice w ic

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    15/62

    ad e pired during a recess o# t e legislature was not "erel$ an appoint"ent to #ill a acanc$ w ic would e pire at t e end o#t e ne t session o# t e legislature, but was an appointment for a full term , and t at t e act o# t e go ernor during a subse uentsession o# t e legislature, in appointing anot er to t e o##ice and as=ing is con#ir"ation b$ t e legislature, was unauthori$ed and&oid, it was said t at, the power of the e+ecuti&e ha&in* been once e+ercised, he had no further control o&er the office until theappointee has been re ected by the senate. : '89 ABR, pp) 1-8, 1-9, 140)( )

    -) e irre ocabilit$ o# t e ad interim appoint"ent ad erted to abo e beco"es "ore apparent w en we consider t at t e @ouse,Co""ission on Appoint"ents or ot er agenc$ o# Congress c arged wit t e #unction o# ter"inating t e e##ecti it$ o# suc appoint"ent,"a$ act t ereon, b$ appro ing or disappro ing t e sa"e, e en t oug t e . ecuti e ad not sub"itted or #orwarded it to said @ouse,Co""ission or agenc$ o# Congress, and e en t oug eit er t e outgoing or t e inco"ing . ecuti e s all a e sub"itted #or con#ir"ationt e na"e o# a subse uent appointee in lieu o# t e #irst one))

    is was t e situation "et in eople e rel, 0merson &s. %haw&er '-0 ?$o -66, *** ac) 11() e #acts t erein were On Jul$ 1, 1919,o ernor Care$ o# ?$o"ing appointed ."erson as state engineer, to #ill t e acanc$ caused b$ t e resignation o# its incu"bent) pont e e piration o# t e latterDs ter", o ernor Care$ reappointed ."erson #or a #ull ter" o# si '6( $ears, #ro" and a#ter April 1, 19*1) islast appoint"ent was con#ir"ed b$ t e state legislature at its ne t session in 19*-) !rior t ereto, owe er, o ernor Care$Ds ter" ade pired and is successor ad appointed / aw er as state engineer) ereupon / aw er ousted ."erson #ro" suc o##ice) +t was eld t at."erson ad a better rig t t ereto t at is appoint"ent in 19*1 was a co"pleted appoint"ent, requirin* no action by the %enate to entiti" to old said o##ice t at a recess appoint"ent once "ade b$ :t e e ecuti e is not sub>ect to reconsideration or recall, :e en t oug notas $et con#ir"ed b$ t e /enate, inas"uc as,: t e appoint"ent alone con#ers upon t e appointee #or t e ti"e being t e rig t to ta=e andold t e o##ice, and constitutes t e last act respecting t e "atter to be per#or"ed b$ t e e ecuti e power: and t at, alt oug t e ter" o#o ernor Care$ ad e pired and neit er e nor is successor ad #orwarded ."ersonDs appoint"ent to t e /enate #or con#ir"ation orre uested t e /enate to act upon said appoint"ent, t e sa"e ad been alidl$ con#ir"ed b$ said bod$, #or )

    e pro ision as to t e o##ice ere in uestion #ound in t e Constitution does not sa$ t at t e appoint"ent "ade b$ t e o ernors all be con#ir"ed b$ t e /enate w en re uested b$ t e #or"er, or upon a co""unication b$ i" sub"itting t e "atter to t e/enate) And we percei e no substantial reason #or adding b$ construction an$ suc restriction upon t e /enateDs rig t to act)' eople ) / aw er, *** ) 11 see, also, Co""onwealt ) ?aller, 145 a) *-5, *- Atl) -8* /tate ) ?illia"s, *0 /)C) 1-Ric ardson ) @enderson, 4 ?$o) 5-5, -5 ac) 517, and ot er cases cited in t e / aw er case)( )

    4) e #oregoing goes to s ow, also, t at t e uestion w et er t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents is or is not a continuing bod$ can nota##ect t e deter"ination o# t e case) ;esides, t e constitutional pro ision "a=ing an ad interim appoint"ent, i# not disappro ed b$ t eCo""ission on Appoint"ents, e##ecti e onl$ until t e ne t ad>ourn"ent o# Congress, clearl$ indicates t at such )ommission must ha&ean opportunity to appro&e or disappro&e the appointment and t at its inaction, despite suc opportunit$, at t e session o# Congress ne t#ollowing t e "a=ing o# t e appoint"ent 2 during w ic it could a e "et, and, probabl$, did "eet 2 "ust be understood as ane pression o# unwillingness to sta"p its appro al upon t e act o# t e e ecuti e) o suc opportunit$ e ists w en t e outgoing Congressas not eld an$ session, regular or special a#ter t e "a=ing o# t e appoint"ent and be#ore t e e piration o# t e ter" o# said Congress, andt e new Congress as not, as $et, organi!ed itsel# or e en "et)

    5) e A"erican rule concerning irre ocabilit$ o# appoint"ents is bolstered up in t e ilippines b$ /ection 4 o# Article L++ o# t eConstitution, w ic pro ides t at 2 :no o##icer o# e"plo$ee in t e Ci il /er ice s all be re"o ed e cept #or cause as pro ided b$ law):'Article 3++, /ection 4)( )

    +n #act, in is concurring opinion in 0raa &s. er*el de "ios '85 il), 17(, our distinguis ed C ie# Justice pointed out t at t e re ocationo# an appoint"ent, i# #easible, :s ould be co""unicated to t e appointee before t e "o"ent e uali#ied,: and t at : any re&ocatiothereafter, is tantamount to remo&al and "ust be >udged according to t e rules applicable to t e re"o al: 'e"p asis ours() +n t e presentcase, t e re ocation o# petitionerDs appoint"ent was not co""unicated to i" be#ore e uali#ied b$ ta=ing is oat o# o##ice) +t is note en clai"ed t at an$ o# t e statutor$ causes #or re"o al o# petitioner erein e ists, or t at t e procedure prescribed #or suc re"o al as

    been co"plied wit )

    6) Once an appointee as uali#ied, e ac uires a legal, not "erel$ e uitable rig t, w ic is protected not onl$ b$ statute, but, also b$ t eConstitution, #or it cannot be ta=en awa$ #ro" i", eit er b$ re ocation o# t e appoint"ent or b$ re"o al, e cept #or cause, and wit

    pre ious notice and earing, consistentl$ wit said /ection 4 o# Article L++ o# our #unda"ental law, and wit t e constitutional

    re uire"ent o# due process '/ego ia s) oel, 47 il), 547 /ec) 67 C)J)/) 117, 4* A") Jur) 887() '/ee also, eople e rel R$an ) reen,58 ) ) *95 eople s) ardner, 59 ;arb 198 ++ Bewis /ut erland /tatutor$ Construction, pp) 1161 and 116* &ec e" on ublicO##icers, /ec) -89 ** R) C) B) -77% -78 *5 A") ec) 690%691, 70-()

    7) e case o# -ipton &s. !ar er '74 /) ?), *98( as been cited in support o# t e t eor$ t at Congress o# t e ilippines was not in :recess:on ece"ber *9, 1961, and t at, accordingl$, ad interim appoint"ents could not alidl$ be "ade in suc date) e uestion in ol ed insaid case was w et er a committee o# t e /enate o# Ar=ansas could be aut ori!ed b$ t e sa"e to #unction a#ter t e ad>ourn"ent sine diet e regular session o# t e state eneral Asse"bl$) e /tate /upre"e Court considered as decisi e aut orit$ t e iew e pressed b$ JudgeCoole$, to t e e##ect t at a legislati e co""ittee : as no aut orit$ to sit during a recess o# a @ouse w ic appointed i", wit out its

    per"ission to t at e##ect:) e issue t us inged on t e "eaning o# t e ter" :recess: as used by Jud*e )ooley ) Resol ing t is uestion,said court eld t at t e recess re#erred to b$ Jud*e )ooley was :onl$ t e inter"ission between t e sittings o# t e sa"e bod$ at its regular orad>ourned session and not to t e inter al between t e #inal ad>ourn"ent o# one bod$ and t e con ening o# anot er at t e ne t regularsession:))

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    16/62

    +n t is connection, it s ould be noted t at, as an agenc$ o# t e /enate, t e co""ittee in ol ed in said case could not operate #or its principal be$ond t e latterDs ter") &oreo er, under t e Constitution o# Ar=ansas, t e regular biennial session o# t e eneral Asse"bl$could not e ceed 60 da$s, unless b$ a ote o# *E- o# t e "e"bers o# eac o# t e two @ouses o# t e legislature) +nas"uc as t e /enatecould not, wit out t e concurrence o# t e @ouse, directl$ e tend t e period o# its regular session, neit er could it, wit out succoncurrence, indirectl$ e tend said period, b$ granting its a#ore"entioned co""ittee t e aut orit$ to #unction be$ond said period) Asstated b$ t e Court :t e co""ittee, being t e "ere agenc$ o# t e bod$ w ic appointed it, dies w en t e bod$ itsel# dies, unless it iscontinued b$ law:, w ic t e /enate "a$ not enact, wit out t e concurrence o# t e @ouse))

    e decision in said case did not see= to de#ine t e "eaning o# t e ter" :recess: as used in an$ constitution or statute) +t did not e en re#erto t e aut orit$ to "a=e appoint"ents during :recess:) +t as absolutel$ no bearing, t ere#ore, on t e issue be#ore us)

    pon t e ot er and, r) Jose &) Aruego, a pro"inent "e"ber o# t e constitutional con ention, sa$s, in is wor= on : e ustice '3era s) A elino, 77 il), 19*, *05 16 C)J)/ 689%690 ?illoug b$ on t e Constitution, 3ol) +++ 1-*6%1-*7(, but to t e politicalorgan establis ed precisel$ to c ec= possible abuses in t e e ercise o# t e appointing power 2 t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents)

    +ndeed, + can ardl$ concei e o# an$ uestion "ore patentl$ and c aracteristicall$ political t an t is one, or "ore appropriate #ordeter"ination o# said bod$) eit er t e possible or probable control t ereo# b$ "e"bers o# t e acionalista art$ nor t e nu"ber o#o##ices or appoint"ents in ol ed can a##ect t e nature o# t e issue) /urel$, its political c aracter is t e sa"e w ic e er political part$ "a$a e t e largest nu"ber o# otes in t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents) e big nu"ber o# said appoint"ents "erel$ tend to "a=e "ore"ani#est t e political co"ple ion t ereo# and its non%>usti#iable nature)

    10) +n 'smea &s. !endatum 'B%17144, October *8, 1960(, we re#used to disturb t e action o# t e @ouse o# Representati es in suspendinga "e"ber t ereo# 2 w o ad "ade derogator$ i"putations against t e resident o# t e ilippines 2 upon t e ground t at suci"putations constituted a breac o# t e courtes$ due to a coordinate branc o# t e o ern"ent) Get, in t e present case, i"putationssi"ilarl$ derogator$ to t e sa"e branc o# t e o ern"ent are, in e##ect, "ade in t e "a>orit$ resolution)

    + cannot see ow suc i"putations can be reconciled wit t e position ta=en b$ t is Court in t e 'smea case and in ot er cases';arcelona s) ;a=er, 5 il), 87 /e erino s) o ernor% eneral, 16 il), -66 Abue a s) ?ood, 45 il), 61* Ale>andrino s) Iue!on,46 il), 85 &abanag s) Bope! 3ito, 78 il), 1 Cabili s)

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    17/62

    Court): +n (abana* &s. Lope$ ito '78 il), 1(, we re#used to decide, upon t e sa"e ground, w et er speci#ied nu"bers o# otesconstituted t ree%#ourt s o# all "e"bers o# eac @ouse o# Congress) +n era &s. #&elino '77 il), 19*(, we not onl$ declared t at :t e

    >udiciar$ is not t e repositor$ o# re"edies #or all political or social e ils,: but, also, uoted wit appro al t e state"ent, "adein #le andrino &s. 3ue$on '46 il), 81(, to t e e##ect t at :t e >udicial depart"ent as no power to re ise e en t e "ost arbitrar$ andun#air action o# t e legislati e depart"ent, or o# eit er @ouse t ereo#, ta=en in pursuance o# t e power co""itted e clusi el$ to t atdepart"ent b$ t e Constitution): '."p asis ours)( )

    11) +n t e present case, we a e co"pletel$ re ersed our stand on t e principle o# separation o# powers) ?e a e in uired into t e "oti eso# t e . ecuti e depart"ent in "a=ing t e appoint"ents in uestion, alt oug it is well settled, under t e a#ore"entioned principle, t at )

    enerall$ courts cannot in uire into t e "oti e, polic$, wisdo", or e pedienc$ o# legislation)

    e >ustice, wisdo", polic$, necessit$, or e pedienc$, o# a law w ic is wit in its powers are #or t e legislature, and are not open toin uir$ b$ t e courts, e cept as an aid to proper interpretation): '16 C)J)/) 471%478( )

    +# t is is true as regards t e legislati e branc o# t e go ern"ent, + can see no alid reason, and none as been pointed out, w $ t e sa"enor" s ould not go ern our relations, wit t e e ecuti e depart"ent) @owe er, we a e not "erel$ disregarded suc nor") ?e are, also,in e##ect, restraining t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents 2 an organ o# a coordinate, co%e ual branc o# t e o ern"ent 2 #ro" acting ont e uestioned appoint"ents) ? at is "ore, we are irtuall$ assu"ing in ad ance t at said bod$ 2 w ic as not been organi!ed as $etand w ose "e"bers ip is still undeter"ined 2 will not act in ar"on$ wit t e spirit o# our Constitution)

    1*) +t is trite to sa$ t at certain "oral and political aspects o# t e issue be#ore us cannot but produce a strong a ersion towards t e case o# petitioner erein and t e undreds o# ot ers appointed under t e sa"e conditions as e was) Alt oug "e"bers o# t e benc "ust alwa$sendea or to "ini"i!e t e in#luence o# e"otional #actors tending to a##ect t e ob>ecti it$ essential to a #air and i"partial appraisal o# t eissues sub"itted #or t eir deter"ination, it is onl$ natural 2 and, + enture to add, #ortunate '#or, ot erwise, ow could t e$ ope to do

    >ustice to t eir #ellow"enF( 2 t at t e$ s ould basicall$ react as ot er "e"bers o# t e u"an #a"il$) is is probabl$ t e reason w $Justice ouglas o# t e udges so"eti"es rela and let t e police ta=e s ortcuts not sanctioned b$ constitutional procedures) )))) e ar" in t egi en case "a$ see" e cusable) ;ut t e practices generated b$ t e precedent a e #ar%reac ing conse uences t at are ar"#uland in>urious be$ond "easure"ent):)

    Bet us ope t at no suc conse uences will #low #ro" t e precedent establis ed in t is case)

    +'RRER'# J., dissenting

    e instant case started wit a si"ple petition #or pro ibition and "anda"us wit preli"inar$ in>unction instituted b$ petitioner A$tonaw o clai"s to a e been dul$ appointed ad interim o ernor o# t e Central ;an=, against respondent Castillo w o, allegedl$acco"panied b$ is correspondent Colonel utierre! and a ost o# ea il$ ar"ed ilippine Constabular$ Rangers, inter#ered wit and

    pre ented t e petitioner in t e disc arge o# is duties and prerogati es as suc o ernor o# t e Central ;an=) uring t e earing,

    owe er, and i""ediatel$ t erea#ter, a great a"ount o# e traneous "atter a##ecting persons not parties to t e proceedings as beenintroduced into t e case and a eritable a alanc e o# "e"oranda a#ter "e"oranda and "ani#estations a#ter "ani#estations swelled t erecords and elped in ol e t e issues) One a"ong t e do!ens w o as=ed to be ad"itted as amici curiae , e en presented an answer in

    be al# o# t e people to support t e side o# t e respondents) n#ortunatel$, in t e con#usion, t e case o# t e i""ediate parties beca"eobscured b$ considerations o# circu"stances and "atters #or and wit w ic petitioner and respondents are not directl$ connected))

    +n "$ opinion, t e #unda"ental uestions w ic t is Court is called upon to resol e in t e present case a speci#icall$ )

    '1( +s t e ad interim, appoint"ent o# petitioner A$tona alid w en e tendedF )

    '*( +# so, did it auto"aticall$ lapse wit t e ending t e ter" o# o##ice o# t e twel e Congress"en co"posing one% al# o# t e"e"bers ip o# t e Co""ission Appoint"entsF )

    '-( &a$ t is appoint"ent be legall$ recalled or wit drawal a#ter A$tona as uali#iedF )

    ;e#ore entering into t e discussion o# t e :propriet$, "oralit$ and wisdo": o# t e appoint"ent, it is necessar$, + belie e, t at t e#oregoing legal propositions "ust #irst be cleared out)

    +) e 3alidit$ o# A$tonaDs Appoint"ent )

    A$tonaDsad interim appoint"ent is assailed on t e t eor$ t at it was not "ade during a :recess: o# Congress as pro ided in paragrap 4,section 10 o# Article 3++ o# t e Constitution) +t is clai"ed #or t e respondents dents t at t e word :recess: "eans :t e inter"ission

    between sittings o# t e sa"e bod$ at its regular or ad>ourned session, and not to t e inter al between t e #inal ad>ourn"ent o# one bod$and t e con ening o# anot er at t e ne t regular session) ? en applied to a legislati e bod$, it "eans a te"porar$ dis"issal, and notad>ourn"ent sine die ): +n support o# t is iew, counsel cites t e case o# -ipton &. !ar er, 71 Ar=) 19-, #ro" w ic t e #oregoing uotationwas ta=en)

    An e a"ination o# t is case, owe er, discloses t at it did not re#er to t e power o# t e resident to "a=e ad interim appoint"ents) e pronounce"ent was "ade in connection wit t e interpretation o# /ection 17, Article 5 o# t e Constitution o# t e /tate o# Ar=ansas) ecase in ol ed t e alidit$ o# t e certi#icate o# t e auditor wit re#erence to t e legalit$ o# t e e penses o# a co""ittee o# t e /tate /enate

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    18/62

    aut ori!ed b$ t e latter to "a=e certain in estigations be$ond t e duration o# t e session o# t e eneral Asse"bl$) e court, in declaringt e certi#icate wit out sanction o# law, stated )

    : e /enate as no power b$ resolution o# its own to e tend its session, and neit er did it a e power to suc separate resolutionto continue its co""ittee, a "ere agenc$ o# t e bod$, be$ond t e ter" o# t e bod$ itsel# w ic created it): )

    in iew o# t e pro isions o# t e a#ore"entioned /ection 17, Article 5 o# t e state Constitution prescribing :t at t e regular biennial sessiono# t e Begislature s all not e ceed 60 da$s, unless b$ *E- ote o# t e "e"bers elected to eac ouse, and section *- re uiring a ote o# t e"a>orit$ o# eac ouse to enact a law or pass a resolution a ing t e #orce and e##ect o# a law:) Apparentl$ an opinion o# Judge Coole$see"ingl$ to t e contrar$ was cited to re#ute t is iew o# t e court, and so t e decision went on to sa$

    .ac ouse, sa$s Judge Coole$, "ust also be allowed to proceed in its own wa$ in t e collection o# suc in#or"ation "a$ see"i"portant to a proper disc arge o# its #unctions and w ene er it is dee"ed desirable t at witnesses s ould be e a"ined, t e

    power and t e aut orit$ to do so is er$ properl$ re#erred to a co""ittee, wit an$ suc powers s ort o# #inal legislati e or >udicial action as "a$ see" necessar$ or e pedient in t e particular case) /uc a co""ittee as no aut orit$ to sit durin* recess of the house w ic as appointed it, wit out its per"ission to t at e##ect) ut the house is at liberty to confer such authorityif it sees fit.

    +t is in t is connection and e identl$ in a desire to e plain t e opinion o# Judge Coole$ t at t e court "ade t e pronounce"ent relied upon b$ respondents, t us )

    )))) e recess ere re#erred to b$ Judge Coole$ we t in= s ould be construed to "ean onl$ t e inter"ission between sittings o#t e sa"e bod$ at its regular or ad>ourned session, and not to t e inter al between t e #inal ad>ourn"ent o# one bod$ and t econ ening o# anot er at t e ne t regular session) ? en applied to a legislati e bod$, it "eans a te"porar$ dis"issal and not anad>ourn"ent sine die )

    e conclusion reac ed b$ t e court can not be ot erwise) e case re#ers to t e powers o# one ouse o# t e state Begislature, wit t econcurrence o# t e ot er, to con#er aut orit$ upon its own co""ittee to act be$ond t e duration o# t e session o# t e eneral Asse"bl$)Certainl$, Judge Coole$Ds iew t at eac ouse as power to con#er aut orit$ to its co""ittee to act during a recess "ust be understood toe ist onl$ during t e li#e o# t e ouse creating t e co""ittee) +t can not go be$ond its own e istence, t at is, be$ond its ad>ourn"ent sindie.

    ;ut t is ruling is no argu"ent t at t e . ecuti eDs power to "a=e appoint"ents during suc ad>ourn"ent sine die does not e ist >us because a ouse o# t e legislature lac=s power to aut ori!e its co""ittee to act during t e sa"e ad>ourn"ent) One re#ers to t e power o# ade#unct bod$ to act be$ond its li#e t e ot er re#ers to t e power o# anot er aut orit$, t e e ecuti e, to per#or" its #unctions a#ter t ee piration o# t at ot er bod$) on%e istence o# t e #irst does not "ean non%e istence o# t e ot er)

    +t is to be noted t at t e di##erent counsel ad ocating t e cause o# t e respondents are not e en agreed in t e application o# t eirinterpretation o# t e word :recess:) /o"e o# t e" argue t at t e interregnu" w ic t e$ contend is not recess, co"pro"ises t e entire

    period between t e ad>ourn"ent o# t e 4t Congress in &a$, 1961 and t e opening o# t e 1st session o# t e #irst session o# t e 5tCongress on Januar$ **, 196*, so t at all ad interim appoint"ents e tended during t is period are null and oid) Ot ers clai" t at sucinterregnu" is t at period between ece"ber 1-, 1961, date o# ad>ourn"ent o# t e last session o# t e 4t Congress, and Januar$ **, 196*)+t see"s t at resident &acapagal is o# t is sa"e iew because is ad"inistrati e Order o) * speci#icall$ re#ers to all appoint"ents "adea#ter ece"ber 1-, 1961) /till ot ers, at least one, ad anced t e t eor$ during t e oral argu"ent t at t e banned period is t at between t ead>ourn"ent o# t e 4t Congress in &a$, and ece"ber -0, 1961, e cluding t ere#ro" t e period between t is last date and Januar$ **,196*) Ob iousl$, t is t eor$ was ad anced in an e##ort to lend alidit$ to t e appoint"ents recentl$ "ade b$ resident &acapagal, #or i#t e entire period between &a$ or ece"ber, 1961 to Januar$ **, 196* is eld not a recess, but an ad>ourn"ent sine die , t en alappoint"ents ereto#ore "ade b$ t e present C ie# . ecuti e would su##er t e sa"e de#ect as t ose e tended b$ #or"er resident arcia)

    is last argu"ent is una ailing because it, li=ewise, is untenable, tested upon t e sa"e aut orit$ cited b$ counsel, i)e), t at t e ter":recess: "eans :t e inter"ission between sittings o# t e same body. : /ince t e 5t Congress as not as $et e en con ened, t e period

    between ece"ber -0 and Januar$ ** can not be a recess o# t e 5t Congress because it, de#initel$, is not an inter"ission between sittin*s o# t e sa"e bod$)

    +n t e circu"stances, it see"s it is an o er%state"ent to sa$ t at t e ter" :recess as a de#inite legal "eaning in t e sense attributed to it in

    t e -ipton &s. !ar er case) e con#usion in t e "inds o# t e se eral counsels #or t e respondents as to t e application o# t e alleged"eaning o# t e ter", indicates a belabored e##ort on t eir part to i"pute a "eaning to satis#$ t eir case) pon t e ot er and, we #ind in:@inds recedents o# t e @ouse o# Representati es: '3ol) 5, pp) 85*%85-(, a legislati e interpretation b$ t e nited /tates /enate "adeduring t e discussion o# t e ter" :recess o# t e /enate: in connection wit t e residentDs1 power to "a=e appoint"ents, as #ollows )

    e word DrecessD is one o# ordinar$, not tec nical, signi#ication, and it is e identl$ used in t e constitutional pro ision in itsco""on and popular sense) +t "eans in Article ++, abo e re#erred to, precisel$ w at it "eans in Article +++, in w ic it is againused) Con#erring power upon t e e ecuti e o# a /tate to "a=e te"porar$ appoint"ent o# a /enator, it sa$s )

    And i# acancies appen, b$ resignation or ot erwise, during t e recess o# t e legislature o# an$ /tate, t e e ecuti e t ereo# "a$"a=e te"porar$ appoint"ents until t e ne t "eeting o# t e legislature, w ic s all t en #ill suc acancies)D )

    +t "eans >ust w at was "eant b$ it in t e Article o# Con#ederation, in w ic it is #ound in t e #ollowing pro ision: )

    e nited /tates in Congress asse"bled s all a e aut orit$ to appoint a co""ittee to sit in t e recess o# Congress, it be

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    19/62

    deno"inated a co""ittee o# t e /tates, and to consist o# one delegate #ro" eac /tate)D )

    +t was e identl$ intended b$ t e #ra"ers o# t e Constitution t at it s ould "ean so"et ing real, not so"et ing i"aginar$so"et ing actual, not so"et ing #ictitious) e$ used t e word as t e "ass o# "an=ind t en understood it and now understand it)+t "eans, in our >udg"ent, in t is connection t e period o# ti"e w en t e /enate is not sitting in regular or e traordinar$ sessionas a branc o# t e Congress, or in e traordinar$ session #or t e disc arge o# e ecuti e #unctions w en its "e"bers owe no dut$o# attendance w en its C a"ber is e"pt$ w en, because o# its absence, it cannot recei e co""unications #ro" t e resident or

    participate as bod$ in "a=ing appoint"ents): )

    e Attorne$ eneral o# t e nited /tates was also o# t is iew w en e stated )

    e recess o# t e /enate during w ic t e resident s all a e power to #ill a acanc$ t at "a$ appen, "eans t e period a#tert e #inal ad>ourn"ent o# Congress #or t e session and be#ore t e ne t session begins w ile an ad>ourn"ent during a session o#Congress "eans a "erel$ te"porar$ suspension o# business #ro" da$ to da$, or #or suc brie# periods o# ti"e as are agreed upon

    b$ t e >oint action o# t e two ouses) e resident is not aut ori!ed to appoint an o##icer during t e current olida$ ad>ourn"ento# t e /enate, w ic will a e t e e##ect o# an appoint"ent "ade in t e recess occurring between two sessions o# t e /enate):' resident % Appoint"ent O##icers % @olida$ Recess, 1901, *- Op) Att$) en) 599, ' )/)C)A) Const) Art) *, /ec) *M*N))

    +t is wort w ile to note t at our Constitution in paragrap 4, /ection 10 o# Article 3++ spea=s o# :recess: wit out "a=ing an$ distribution between t e sessions one congress and t e sessions o# anot er) And it is trite to sa$ t at w en t e law "a=es no distinction, no distinctions ould be "ade, especiall$ i# to do so would result in a strained interpretation t ereo# and de#eat t e e ident purpose o# t e #ra"ers o# t eConstitution % in t is instance, to render it certain t at at ti"es t ere s ould be, w et er t e Congress is in session or not, an o##icer #ore er$ o##ice, entitled to disc arge t e duties t ereo#) '5 @inds, op) cit), p) 85-)( )

    ++) Lapsin* of #ytona/s #ppointment5 .

    +t is contended #or t e respondents t at since 1* "e"bers o# t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents ceased to be suc upon t e e piration o#t eir ter" o# o##ice at "idnig t o# ece"ber *9, 1961, t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents li=ewise ceased to e ist on t e t eor$ t atcreation can not e ist be$ond t e li#e o# its creator at least wit respect to one% al# o# its "e"bers) is see"s to ste" #ro" t e wrongnotion t at t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents is a creature o# t e Congress) is con#uses t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents as aconstitutional bod$ wit its "e"bers) e bod$ continued to e ist, but onl$ its "e"bers ip c anges periodicall$) ? en t e Constitution

    pro ides in /ection 1- o# Article 6 t ereo# t at :t e .lectoral ribunals and t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents s all be constituted wit in-0 da$s a#ter t e /enate and t e @ouse o# Representati es s all a e been organi!ed wit t e election o# t eir resident and /pea=er,respecti el$:, it did not "ean t at t e /enate and t e @ouse o# Representati es t ereb$ create said bodies, no "ore t an t e resident can

    be said to create t e /upre"e Court b$ appointing t e Justices t erein) +t si"pl$ ordained t at t e Co""ission be constituted or organi!ed b$ electing t e "e"bers t ereo#, w ose positions a e alread$ been created in irtue o# /ection 1* o# t e sa"e Constitution) o old t e.lectoral ribunals and t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents are non%e isting during t e period #ro" ece"ber -0, 1961 to Januar$ **, 196*'and during t e corresponding period e er$ #our $ears t erea#ter( will result in an absurdit$ and a situation destructi e o# t e nor"al

    processes pro ided in t e Constitution) One o# suc absurd results would be t at no electoral protest against an$ elected and proclai"edcongress"an or senator can be legall$ #iled wit t e .lectoral ribunals wit in t e period prescribe b$ t eir rules, t at is, wit in #i#teenda$s #ollowing t e procla"ation o# t e results o# t e election, w ic period #alls wit in t e ti"e w en t e .lectoral ribunals 'as is t ecase o# Co""ission on Appoint"ents( are allegedl$ non%e istent)

    e proceedings in t e Constitutional Con ention are cited to support t e t eor$ t at t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents is not a per"anentco""ission) A re iew o# t e records, owe er, o# t at con ention re eals t at w at was intended in t e proposed dra#t was to aut ori!et e Co""ission on Appoint"ents to old sessions e en w en t e Congress is not in session) e "ere #act t at suc a proposal wasde#eated and, conse uentl$, t e word :per"anent: was not adopted in t e #inal te t, does not i"port t at t e Constitution "eant to gi e ano## and on e istence to t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents lapsing e er$ #our $ears w en t e twel e o# its "e"bers cease to be suc ) Ont e contrar$, it see"s "ore logical to old t at t e legal e istence o# t e Co""ission as well as t e .lectoral ribunals continueirrespecti e o# t e acancies t at "a$ e ist in t e "e"bers ip t ereo#) +t is #or t is reason t at t e personnel o# t ese bodies do not cease

    periodicall$, but continue to per#or" t eir duties in t eir respecti e o##ices #or w ic t e$ are legall$ paid t eir salaries b$ t ego ern"ent) +t see"s clear, t ere#ore, t at t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents did not lapse on ece"ber *9, 1961) eit er did t eappoint"ent o# A$tona lapse on t at date because t e sa"e could not be acted upon b$ t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents during t e recess

    o# t e Congress)+++) (ay the appointment of #ytona be le*ally recalled or withdrawn after he has qualified for the position to which he was appointed6 .

    recedents are to t e e##ect t at w en once an appoint"ent as been e tended b$ t e C ie# . ecuti e w o, as is pro ided in ourConstitution, as t e sole power o# appoint"ent sub>ect onl$ to t e consent o# t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents, and t e appointee asaccepted t e appoint"ent, t e sa"e beco"es co"plete and t e appointing power can not wit draw it e cept in cases w ere t e tenure o#t e appointee is at t e C ie# . ecuti eDs pleasure or upon grounds >usti#$ing re"o al and a#ter due process) is is not because t eappoint"ent constitutes a contract '#or trul$ a public o##ice can not be sub>ect o# an$ contract(, but because o# t e pro isions o# t eConstitution itsel# to t e e##ect t at :no o##icer or e"plo$ee in t e Ci il /er ice s all be re"o ed or suspended e cept #or cause as

    pro ided b$ law): +#, t ere#ore, t e recall or t e wit drawal o# t e appoint"ent o# A$tona was not aut ori!ed b$ law, t en is assu"ptiono# t e #unctions o# is o##ice on Januar$ *, 196* was clearl$ wit in is legal rig t and t e inter#erence o# Castillo, aggra ated b$ t eassistance or at least t e presence o# "e"bers o# t e Ar"ed

  • 8/12/2019 Law Case Digests supreme court en banc decisions Philippine Constitutional Law

    20/62

    "andates o# t e Constitution and t e legal and >udicial precedents, respondents a e appealed to t is Court #or it to e ercise :>udicialstates"ans ip: in o=ing t e spirit o# t e Constitution) +t is clai"ed t at t ere was a "ani#est abuse o# power b$ t e outgoing resident ine tending, on t e e e o# t e e piration o# is ter", so"e t ree undred and #i#t$ ad interim appoint"ents to #ill an e ual nu"ber o#acancies in t e di##erent branc es o# t e go ern"ent t at no proper consideration was gi en o# t e "erits o# t e appointees, it appearingt at in t e case o# at least so"e o# t e appointees to t e >udiciar$, t eir assurance o# an i""ediate assu"ption o# o##ice or t e ta=ing o#oat was "ade a condition precedent to t e appoint"ents, and t at t ere was a wild scra"ble in &alaca an a"ong t e appointees on t enig t o# ece"ber *9) ?e are scandali!ed b$ t is and e pect t e Court to appl$ t e re"ed$) ? at o# t e proceedings in Congress duringt e last da$ o# session w en bills a#ter bills are passed in a "anner not too dissi"ilar to t e described scene in &alaca anF Can t e/upre"e Court be e pected to correct t is too b$ declaring all suc laws as in alid >ust as we are as=ed to in alidate t ese appoint"entsF )

    ;e t is as it "a$, w ate er "a$ be our personal iews on t is "atter, + agree wit &r) Justice Concepcion t at not all wrongs or e enabuse o# power can be corrected b$ t e e ercise o# t e ig prerogati es o# t e /upre"e Court ested in it b$ t e Constitution) As + ta=e it,t e ig er and "ore delicate is t e prerogati e, t e greater s ould be t e degree o# sel#%restraint in t e e ercise t ereo#, lest t e #ine andtested scale o# c ec=s and balances set up b$ t e Constitution be >arred) +n t e sa"e "anner t at we e pect circu"spection and care, e endouble care, on t e part o# t e ot er two co%e ual coordinate depart"ents o# t e go ern"ent, so "ust we be "ost cautious and slow in

    >udging t e "oralit$, propriet$ and good #ait in ol ed in t e actuations o# t e ot er depart"ents in "atters co"ing wit in t eirco"petence) e re"ed$, + belie e, under t e circu"stances is wit t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents to w ic t e appoint"ents a e

    been sub"itted) e "ore #act t at it is e pected t at t e Co""ission on Appoint"ents would be controlled b$ t e part$ o# t e outgoingresident is i""aterial, because legal processes can not be "ade to depend upon t e #ortunes o# political parties, #or t ere is still t eulti"ate re"ed$ b$ t e people in all aut orit$) At an$ rate, as as alread$ been aptl$ said t e >udiciar$ is not t e repositor$ o# re"edies#or all political or social e ils, and t at t e >udicial depart"ent as no power to re ise e en arbitrar$ or un#air action o# t e ot erdepart"ents ta=en in pursuance o# t e power co""itted e clusi el$ to t ose depart"ents b$ t e Constitution))

    &a$ + add all t e scandalous circu"stances broug t to t e attention o# t is Court did not lin= t e petitioner erein, sa e #or t e #act t at

    t is appoint"ent was e tended on t e sa"e da$ as t ose issued under t e unusual and irregular circu"stances attending t e ot erappoint"ents) +# at all, t ere is e idence in #a or o# A$tona to t e e##ect t at inso#ar as e is concerned, is appoint"ent to t e position o#o ernor o# t e Central ;an= as been under consideration #or a long ti"e and t at e is uali#ied #or t e position) +t can not, t ere#ore besaid t at wit respect to i" t ere was no "ature deliberation and due consideration o# is uali#ications and o# t e need o# t e ser ice) ec arge was "ade t at t e position o# o ernor o# t e Central ;an= as been acant #or se eral "ont s and t at t e resident s ould a e#illed it earlier) Get, w en t e resident actuall$ #illed it as e did, e is critici!ed clai"ing t at t ere was no i""ediate need #or sucaction in iew o# t e #act t at t ere was an Acting o ernor) at it was reall$ necessar$ to #ill t e position is e idenced b$ t e act o#resident &acapagal i"sel# in "a=ing is own appoint"ent ardl$ twent$%#our ours a#ter e recalled t e appoint"ent o# A$tona)

    /u""ari!ing, + would sa$ t at all t e circu"stances cited b$ t e respondents t at a e surrounded t e issuance o# t e appoint"ents inuestion, a e to do wit t e "ode or "anner o# t e e ercise o# t e aut orit$ to "a=e t e appoint"ent, uite apart #ro" t e e istence o#t e aut orit$ itsel#) e obser ance o# good #ait , "oralit$ and propriet$ b$ t e ot er two co%e ual coordinate depart"ents in t e

    per#or"ance o# t eir #unctions "ust be secured b$ t eir sense o# dut$ and o##icial oat and not b$ an$ super isor$ power o# t e courts))

    e role o# courts in our sc e"e o# go ern"ent is to interpret t e law and render >ustice under it) is si"pl$ "eans t at w ate er "a$ beour own personal #eelings as to t e propriet$, "oralit$, or wisdo" o# an$ o##icia