IN RE LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RENATO S.
PUNO  On November 29, 1990, the Court granted petitioner Puno’s request, and his
A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA | June 29, 1992
Ponente: PADILLA, J.:
Topic: Evolution of the Philippine Constitution > The Aquino Revolutionary
Government and the 1986 Freedom Constitution
FACTS:
 Petitioner Associate Justice Puno (petitioner Puno) had been serving as
Assistant Solicitor General in the Office of Solicitor General since 1974.
 On June 1980, petitioner Puno was appointed as the Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals (CA). But he took his oath of office for the said position only
on November 1982.
 On January 1983, the CA was reorganized and became the Intermediate
Appellate Court (IAC) pursuant to Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. As a result,
petitioner Puno was appointed Appellate Justice in the First Special Cases
Division of the IAC.
 On November 1984, petitioner Puno accepted an appointment to be ceased
to be a member of the Judiciary.
 Moreover, the aftermath of the EDSA Revolution in February 1986 brought
about a reorganization of the entire government, including the Judiciary –
resulting to a creation of a Screening Committee to reorganize the IAC and
other lower courts.
 Then President Cory Aquino, exercising legislative powers by virtue of the
revolution, issued Executive Order No. 33 (EO No. 33) to govern the
reorganization of the Judiciary.
 The Screening Committee recommended the return of petitioner Puno as
Associate Justice of the new CA, and he was rank # 11 in the roster of
appellate court justices.
 On July 1986, President Aquino signed the appointments, but petitioner
Puno’s seniority ranking changed from # 11 to # 26.
 On November 14, 1990, petitioner Puno wrote a letter to the Supreme Court
(SC), seeking the correction of his seniority ranking in the CA, alleging that
the change in his seniority ranking could have been attributed to inadvertence
for, otherwise, it would run counter to the provisions of EO No. 33 –which
states that “…Any Member who is reappointed to the Court after rendering
service in any other position in the government shall retain the precedence to
which he was entitled under his original appointment, and his service in the
Court shall, for all intents and purpose be considered as continuous and
uninterrupted.”
seniority rank was changed to # 5.
 However, Associate Justices Campos and Javellano –two Associate Jusitces
affected by the ordered correction –filed a motion for reconsideration. They
contended that the present CA is a new court and that petitioner could not
claim reappointment to a prior court; neither can he claim that he was
returning to his former court, for the courts where he had previously been
appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last appointment.
 As a reply, petitioner Puno argued that by virtue of EO No. 33, read in relation
to BP Blg 129, his seniority rank in the CA is now # 5, because President
Aquino –although she rose to power by virtue of a revolution –pledged at the
issuance of Proclamation No. 3 (also known as the Freedom Constitution)
that “no right provided under the unratified 1973 Constitution [shall] be absent
in the Freedom Constitution.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not President Aquino’s appointment of petitioner Puno was a valid
exercise of her revolutionary powers.
RULING:
Yes, President Aquino’s appointment of petitioner Puno was a valid exercise of her
revolutionary powers.
Various jurisprudence defines revolution as “the complete overthrow of the
established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject
to it” or as “a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political
system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence.”
Here, it was through the February 1986 revolution, more popularly known as the
“people power revolution”, that the Filipinos tore themselves away from an existing
regime. The rose of the Cory Aquino to the presidency was not due to constitutional
processes. The organization of Aquino’s government was met by little resistance and
her control over the state signaled the point where the legal system then in effect had
ceased to be obeyed by the Filipinos. As a result, the CA and IAC existing prior to
EO No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by the revolution. In
other words, the CA established under EO No. 33 was an entirely new court with
appointments having no relation to earlier appointments to abolished courts, and that
the reference to precedence in rank contained in last sentence of Section 2, BP Blg
129 refers to prospective situations as distinguished from retroactive ones.
Therefore, President Aquino’s appointment of petitioner Puno was a valid exercise of
her revolutionary powers.