Atty.

Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law

3. Vargas v. Rilloraza G.R.No. L-1612, Feb.26,1948

Facts:
 Section 14 of the People’s Court Act or Commonwealth Act No. 682
was assailed in this motion on the grounds, inter alia that it provides
for additional qualifications other than those provided in Section 6 of
Article VIII of the Constitution, authorizes the appointment of
members of the Supreme Court who do not possess such
qualifications, creates two Supreme Courts and destroys the
independence of the Judiciary.
 Section 14 of the People’s Court Act provides that any Supreme
Court Justice who held any office or position under the Philippine
Executive Commission or the Philippine Republic may not sit and
vote in cases in which the accused also held any office under the said
Commission or Occupation government. On account of such
disqualification or any of the disqualifications provided in Section 1
of the Rules of Court (such as illness, absence or temporary
disability), the President may designate Judges of First Instance and
Cadastral Judges to sit temporarily as Justice of the Supreme Court,
to constitute the necessary quorum or until a judgment is rendered.
Issue:
Whether or not Sec. 14 of CA 682 is constitutional
Ruling:
 No. Sec. 14 of CA 582 is unconstitutional.
 Article VIII, sections 4 and 5, of the Constitution do not admit any
composition of the Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices therein mentioned appointed as therein provided.
And the infringement is enhanced and aggravated where a majority
of the members of the Court — as in this case — are replaced by
judges of first instance. It is distinctly another Supreme Court in
addition to this. And the constitution provides for only one Supreme

Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”

 Atty. Antonio Rivero - Philosophy of Law

Court. Grounds for disqualification added by section 14 of

Commonwealth Act No. 682 to those already existing at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution and continued by it is not only
arbitrary and irrational but positively violative of the organic law.
 Constitutional requirement (Art. VIII Sec 5) provides that the
members of the Supreme Court should be appointed by the President
with the consent of the CoA, “Unless provided by law" in Sec 4
cannot be construed to authorize any legislation which would alter
the composition of the Supreme Court, as determined by the
Constitution.
 However temporary or brief may be the participation of a judge
designated under Sec. 14 of PCA, there is no escaping the fact the he
would be participating in the deliberations and acts of the SC, as the
appellate tribunal, and his vote would count as much as that any
regular Justice of the Court. "A temporary member" therefore would
be a misnomer, as that position is not contemplated by the
Constitution, where Sec.4 of Art. VIII only provides A Chief Justice
and Associate Justices who have to be thus appointed and confirmed
(Sec5).

Jonathan DP. Racelis | JD1A “Non Scholae Sed Vitae”