This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1948 regarding the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. The key points are:
- Section 14 allowed for additional qualifications and temporary designations of Supreme Court justices, which contradicted the qualifications outlined in the Philippine Constitution.
- The Court ruled that Section 14 was unconstitutional as Congress did not have the power to establish new disqualifications or allow designees to sit temporarily on the Supreme Court.
- The concurring opinion agreed that Section 14 went against the supremacy of the Constitution and clearly contradicted its provisions regarding Supreme Court appointments.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1948 regarding the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. The key points are:
- Section 14 allowed for additional qualifications and temporary designations of Supreme Court justices, which contradicted the qualifications outlined in the Philippine Constitution.
- The Court ruled that Section 14 was unconstitutional as Congress did not have the power to establish new disqualifications or allow designees to sit temporarily on the Supreme Court.
- The concurring opinion agreed that Section 14 went against the supremacy of the Constitution and clearly contradicted its provisions regarding Supreme Court appointments.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1948 regarding the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. The key points are:
- Section 14 allowed for additional qualifications and temporary designations of Supreme Court justices, which contradicted the qualifications outlined in the Philippine Constitution.
- The Court ruled that Section 14 was unconstitutional as Congress did not have the power to establish new disqualifications or allow designees to sit temporarily on the Supreme Court.
- The concurring opinion agreed that Section 14 went against the supremacy of the Constitution and clearly contradicted its provisions regarding Supreme Court appointments.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1948 regarding the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. The key points are:
- Section 14 allowed for additional qualifications and temporary designations of Supreme Court justices, which contradicted the qualifications outlined in the Philippine Constitution.
- The Court ruled that Section 14 was unconstitutional as Congress did not have the power to establish new disqualifications or allow designees to sit temporarily on the Supreme Court.
- The concurring opinion agreed that Section 14 went against the supremacy of the Constitution and clearly contradicted its provisions regarding Supreme Court appointments.
FACTS: A motion dated August 28, 1947, assails the constitutionality of section 14 of the People's Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. 682) upon the following grounds among others: (a) It provides for qualification of members of the Supreme Court, other than those provided in section 6, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution, (b) It authorizes the appointment of members of the Supreme Court who do not possess the qualifications set forth in section 6, Article VIII, of the Philippine Constitution, (c) It removes from office the members of the Supreme Court by means of a procedure other than impeachment, contrary to Article IX, of the Philippine Constitution, (d) It deprives the Commission on Appointments of Congress of its constitutional prerogative to confirm or reject appointments to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the prosecution, opposes the motion and in support of his opposition submits the Power of Congress to enact section 14 of the Commonwealth Act No. 682. This opposition is a reproduction by reference in the instant case of a similar pleading filed by the Solicitor General in G.R. No. L-398, People vs. Sison. For the purposes of the present resolution, the considerations presently to be set forth are deemed insufficient. Article VIII, section 4, of the Constitution ordains that the Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices and may sit either in banc or in two divisions unless otherwise provided by law, while section 6 of the same Article provides for the requirements and qualifications for the Chief Justice and Associate Justices. Art. XVI, section 2, provides that "all laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the inauguration of the Commonwealth, and thereafter they shall remain operative unless inconsistent with this Constitution, until amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines ..." Such question of unconstitutionality or repugnancy to the constitution, however, arises in relation to the disqualification of certain members of the Supreme Court provided for in section 14 of the People's Court Act. ISSUES: (a) whether or not the Congress had power to ass to the pre-existing grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the Supreme Court, that provided for in said section 14; (b) whether or not a person may act as a Justice of the Supreme Court who has not been duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments pursuant to the constitution , even only as a "designee"; and (c) whether or not by the method of "designation" created by the forecited section 14 a Judge of First Instance, Judge-at-large of First Instance, or Cadastral Judge, designated by the President
GEDUQUIO, MARY CLAIRE I. JD-IA, WMSU COL (AY 2022-2023)
under the same section can constitutionally "sit temporarily as Justice" of the Supreme Court by virtue thereof. DECISION: No. The Congress cannot pass the disqualifications of Justice of the SC as provided in Section 14. No. The Constitution is clear that the Justice must be appointed by the President. No. The "designees" cannot "sit temporarily as Justices" of the Supreme Court. For the foregoing consideration, it is declared and ordered: (a) that section 14 of the People's Court Act is unconstitutional in the respects specified in the body of this resolution; and (b) that this case be dealt with henceforward in pursuance of and in harmony with this resolution. SEPARATE OPINION: We concur in the above resolution of Justice Hidalgo the Sec. 14 of the People’s Court Act No. 682. The Constitution has supremacy over the other laws enacted, thus what it provides must always prevail. In this case, it was obvious the provisions of Section 14 is contradicting to the Constitution. What the constitution directs, the section prohibits. There is a clear case of repugnancy of fundamental law.
GEDUQUIO, MARY CLAIRE I. JD-IA, WMSU COL (AY 2022-2023)