BADGE: Civil Procedure; Judgments; Stare Decisis; Sources of Law- Precedent

CAPTION: ARTURO M. DE CASTRO vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) and PRESIDENT
GLORIA MACAPAGAL – ARROYO, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010, J. BERSAMIN.

SYLLABUS: Stare decisis means that a principle underlying the decision in one case is deemed
of imperative authority, controlling the decisions of like cases in the same court and in lower
courts within the same jurisdiction, unless and until the decision in question is reversed or
overruled by a court of competent authority

The Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent;
The adherence to precedents is strict and rigid in a common-law setting like the United Kingdom,
where judges make law as binding as an Act of Parliament—but ours is not a common-law system;
hence, judicial precedents are not always strictly and rigidly followed.

FACTS: The case arises as the controversy of compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on
May 17, 2010, or after seven days after the presidential election. Under Section 4(1), in relation
to Section 9, Article VIII, states that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy.”

Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department) of the Constitution does not allow the President
or Acting President from creating appointments within two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety. The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously agreed to start
the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice. Conformably with its existing practice, the
JBC “automatically considered” for the position of Chief Justice the five most senior of the
Associate Justices of the Court, namely: Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice
Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. However, the last two declined
their nomination through letters dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively.
The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint the next Chief Justice, because
the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments
in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice.

RULLING: Prohibition under section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a
vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the judiciary. The records of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to
meticulously drafting, styling, and arranging the Constitution. Such meticulousness indicates
that the organization and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitrarily
or whimsically done by the framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and manifest
their vision of what the Constitution should contain. As can be seen, Article VII is devoted to the
Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the powers vested by the Constitution in the
President. The presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the
Article. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII
to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They
could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and
surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable
to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section
4 (1), Article VIII.

FALLO; ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration are denied with finality.

SO ORDERED.