In Re Valenzuela Facts

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT

In Re: Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta Article 8 Sec 4
Adm. Mat. No. 98-5-01-SC. November 9, 1998.* "The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Ponente: NARVASA, C.J. Digest Author: 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
DOCTRINE: thereof."
Article 8 Sec 9
FACTS: "The Members of the Supreme Court and judges in lower courts shall be appointed
by the President from the list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and
On March 30, 1998, The President signed appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
Placido Vallarta as Judges of RTC-Bago City and Cabanatuan City, respectively.
CJ received from Malacanang, the appointments of the 2 Judges of the RTC mentioned.
These appointments were deliberated, as it seemed to be expressly prohibited by Art 7 Sec 15 Considering the pending proceedings and deliberations on this matter, the Court resolved by
of the Constitution: refraining the appointees from taking their oaths. However, Judge Valenzuela took oath in
“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to May 14, 1998 claiming he did so without knowledge on the on-going deliberations. It should
the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, be noted that the originals of the appointments for both judges had been sent to and
except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies received by the CJ on May 12 and is still in the latter’s office and had not been transmitted yet.
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety." According to Judge Valenzuela, he did so because of the May 7 Malacanang copy of his
appointment.
A meeting was held by the JBC to discuss the constitutionality of appointments to the CA in
light of the forthcoming 1998 Presidential elections. In construing Article 7 and 8: when there are no presidential election, Art 8 shall apply where
vacancies in SC shall be filled within 90 days otherwise prohibition in Art7 must be
Senior Associate Justice Regalado, Consultant of the Council and Member of the 1986 CC, was considered where the President shall not make any appointments.
in the position that “election ban had no application to the CA based on the Commission’s
records”. This hypothesis was then submitted to the President for consideration together with According to Fr. Bernas, the reason for prohibition is in order not to tie the hands of the
the Council’s nominations for 8 vacancies in the CA. incoming Pres through midnight appointments.

The CJ received an official communication from the Executive Secretary transmitting the ISSUE:
appointments of 8 Associate Justices of CA duly signed on March 11, 1998 (day immediately
before the commencement of the ban on appointments), which implies that the President’s RULING+RATIO:
Office did not agree with the hypothesis.

The President, addressed to the JBC, the transmission of the “list of final nominees” for the OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
vacancy in view of the 90 days imposed by the Constitution (from Feb 13, date present
vacancy occurred).
DISPOSITION:
In behalf of the JBC, CJ sent the reply on that no session has been scheduled after the May
elections for the reason that they apparently did not share the same view (hypothesis) NOTES:
proposed by the JBC shown by the uniformly dated March 11, 1998 appointments.

However, it appeared that the Justice Secretary and the other members of the Council took
action without waiting for the CJ reply. This prompted CJ to call for a meeting on May 7. On
this day, CJ received a letter from the President in reply of the May 6 letter where the
President expressed his view that Article 7 Sec 15 only applied to executive appointments, the
whole article being entitled “EXECUTIVE DEPT”. He posited that appointments in the Judiciary
have special and specific provisions, as follows:

You might also like