You are on page 1of 5

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES – CHAPTER 1 -3 their salaries is already a diminution of their benefits/salaries (see

Jann Claudine M. Amago 3 – B Section 9, Art. VIII, Constitution).

Constitutional Construction The Solicitor General, arguing in behalf of the CIR, states that the
decision in Perfecto vs Meer was rendered ineffective when Congress
1. Perfecto vs. Meer enacted Republic Act No. 590.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 13 of RA 590 is constitutional.
In April 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice
Gregorio Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of the HELD: No. The said provision is a violation of the separation of powers.
Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount, he instituted an Only courts have the power to interpret laws. Congress makes laws but
action in Manila Court of First Instance contending that the assessment courts interpret them. In Sec. 13, R.A. 590, Congress is already
was illegal, his salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of encroaching upon the functions of the courts when it inserted the
taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of the Constitution. It provides phrase: “payment of which [tax] is hereby declared not to be a
in its Article VIII, Section 9 that the members of the Supreme Court and diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.”
all judges of inferior courts “shall receive such compensation as may be
Here, Congress is already saying that imposing taxes upon judges is not
fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
a diminution of their salary. This is a clear example of interpretation or
office.
ascertainment of the meaning of the phrase “which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office,” found in Section 9, Article
ISSUE
VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries of judicial officers. This
Whether or not the imposition of an income tax upon this salary in 1946
act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature
amount to a diminution.
is an invasion of the well-defined and established province and
jurisdiction of the Judiciary.
HELD
Yes, the imposition of the income tax upon the salary of Justice Perfecto “The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature cannot pass any
amount to a diminution thereof. The prohibition is general, contains declaratory act, or act declaratory of what the law was before its
no excepting words, and appears to be directed against all passage, so as to give it any binding weight with the courts. A legislative
diminution, whether for one purpose or another. The fathers of definition of a word as used in a statute is not conclusive of its meaning
the Constitution intended to prohibit diminution by taxation as well as as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature would be usurping a
otherwise, that they regarded the independence of the judges as of far judicial function in defining a term.
greater importance than any revenue that could come from taxing their
salaries. Thus, taxing the salary of a judge as a part of his income is a The interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is
violation of the Constitution. within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the judicial department,
and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide
1.Constitutional Law; Taxation; Tax On Income Of therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a
Constitutional Officers.—The imposition of income tax upon the Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their
salary of judges is a diminution thereof, and violates the Constitution. task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation
sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous
2.Id.; Id.; Id.; Right Not Waivable.—The undiminishable character interpretation already given in a case by the highest court of the land.
of judicial salaries is not a mere privilege of judges—personal and
therefore waivable—but a basic limitation upon legislative or executive
action imposed in the public interest.
*In conclusion we reiterate the doctrine laid down in the case
3.ID.; ID.; ID.—On income other than judicial salary, tax assessments of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra, to the effect that the collection of income
may be levied for men on the Bench. It is only when the tax is charged tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so
directly on their salary and the effect of the tax is to diminish their official violates the Constitution. We further hold that the interpretation and
stipend when taxation becomes an infringement of the fundamental application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive
charter. province and jurisdiction of the Judicial department, and that in enacting
a law, the Legislature may not legally provide therein that it be
4.ID.; ID.—Perhaps the Legislature may validly provide by a law that interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional
salaries of judges appointed after its passage shall be subject to income prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of later
tax. Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil. 552, No. L-2348 February 27, 1950 interpreting said statute, specially when the interpretation sought and
provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already
given in a case by the highest court of the land.
2. Endencia vs. David
Constitutional Law ; Taxation; Interpretation of Laws, a
Saturnino David, the then Collector of Internal Revenue, ordered the Judicial Finction.—The Legislature cannot lawfully declare the
taxing of Justice Pastor Endencia’s and Justice Fernando Jugo’s (and collection of income tax on the salary of a public official, specially a
other judges’) salary pursuant to Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 590 which judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the Supreme Court has
provides that found and decided otherwise. "Defining and interpreting the law is a
judicial function and the legis lative branch may not limit or restrict the
No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the power granted to the courts by the Constitution." (Bandy vs. Mickelson
Philippines shall be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment et al., 44 N.W., 2nd, 341, 342; see also 11 Am. Jur., 714-715 and 905.)
of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation The act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the
fixed by the Constitution or by law. Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and established province
and jurisdiction of the Judiciary, .
The judges however argued that under the case of Perfecto vs Meer,
judges are exempt from taxation – this is also in observance of the Id.; Separation of Powers—Under our system of constitutional
doctrine of separation of powers, i.e., the executive, to which the government, the Legislative department is assigned the power to make
Internal Revenue reports, is separate from the judiciary; that under the and enact laws. The Executive department is charged with the execution
Constitution, the judiciary is independent and the salaries of judges may or carrying out of the provisions of said laws. But the interpretation and
not be diminished by the other branches of government; that taxing application of said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial department.

1

7-8). It would reduced in accepting service in government and yet subject to income be a strained construction to read into the provision an exemption from tax. then the law will have to give way and has to be declared the General Provisions a proscription against exemption of any public invalid and unconstitutional. 696. Intent of the framers of the organic law enjoin the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer and of the people adopting it should be given effect. Commissioner of lnternal Revenue." even as it is anathema to the Ideal be given effect. 1987 Constitutional Law. of the 1987 Constitution. During their continuance in office.—The Court REAFFIRMED the Chief Justice's previous and standing directive to the 1. 1953 diminution of their salaries during their continuance in office. Meer and Endencia vs. specially with regard to Commissioner Joaquin F. Before the courts can determine whether a law is the general income tax applied to all taxpayers. interpellations and opinions expressed regarding the from their salaries. Thus. In the course of the deliberations.And this au-thority to interpret and apply the laws extends to the Rigos. construing Section 10. Meer and Endencia vs. the Court since then has authorized the continuation of the 3. voting jointly. 93 Phil. from payment of income tax. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed the Supreme Court as well as from the salaries of all other members of forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary. from making any deduction of withholding taxes debates. etc. In case of invasion or rebellion. NCR. in order to decide whether there is a conflict between the two. Ruling in Perfecto vs. is reiterated. the Court had dealt with the matter administratively in response to representations 1. taxation in the light of the discussion in the Constitutional Commission. Such is true also of Cabinet members and all other employees. for HELD: clarity. infra. David. The primary task in constitutional construction is to of an independent judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution. and of judges of income tax applied to all taxpayers. As will be shown safety requires it. The Court hereby makes of record that it had then that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs. It may ISSUE: Whether or not members of the Judiciary are exempt from also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were income taxes. This intent was constitutional or not. Salaries of Justices and Judges subject to income taxation. guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers. Meer (85 Phil. Besides. Javellana vs. in adopting it. Enrile that the Court direct its Finance Officer to discontinue the withholding of taxes from salaries of members of the Bench. but also of the pertinent portion of the Constitution Constitution as approved and ratified in February. least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session. No. as well as from the salaries of all other members of laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. pp. seek to prohibit and/or perpetually Statutory Construction. that which they are receiving at the time of enactment. which revocation shall not be 2 .." That should have resolved the question. It is plain that the Constitution. the Court en banc had re-affirmed the Chief Justice's directive as follows: 1973 Constitution "RE: Question of exemption from income taxation. diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. was to make the salaries of members of the compensation as judicial officers constitutes a decrease or diminution of Judiciary taxable. 152 SCRA 284.—lt may be pointed out that. is again reproduced hereunder: "The salary of the Chief Justice No. Declaration of Martial Law David. he may the judiciary. the deliberations of the1986 Constitutional Commission Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of negate the contention that the intent of the framers is to revert to the compensation of Justices and Judges but such rate must be higher than original concept of non-diminution´ of salaries of judicial officers. 552) to the effect the Judiciary. on June 4. duly qualified and appointed judges of the RTC. discarded. L-6355-56 August payment of the income tax and considered such payment as a 31.. and inadvertently not clearly set forth in the final text of the 1987 their salary shall not be decreased. contrary to the provision of Section 10. the clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any delete the proposed express grant of exemption from payment of part thereof under martial law. 1987 (infra. when the public issue raised through this judicial pronouncement. officer or employee. 1987. by a vote of at expressly made clear. the President shall submit a report in person or in Commissioner Rigos. The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income earners and 3. it Justices and judges are not only the citizens whose income has been would be applicable only to those appointed after its approval." (Italics supplied). The Congress. Executive Secretary Fiscal Management and Budget Office of this Court to continue with the deduction of the withholding taxes from the salaries of the Justices of Section 18.Taxation. including constitutional officers. so as to "give substance to proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ equality among the three branches of Government" in the words of of habeas corpus. L- 78780 July 23. However. constitutional provision in question until it was finally approved by the Commission disclosed that the true intent of the framers of the 1987 They submit that "any tax withheld from their emoluments or Constitution. he may. Aquino vs. or if lower. that the salaries of members of the Judiciary would be subject to Con-stitution. it will have to interpret and ascertain the meaning somehow and inadvertently not clearly set forth in the final text of the not only of said law. may Bernas' accepted amendment to the amendment of Commissioner revoke such proclamation or suspension. with call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. suspend hereinafter. the Court has deemed it best to settle the legal invasion or rebellion. which. Although such intent was somehow lower courts shall be fixed by law. The salaries of members of the Judiciary are subject to the general and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Nitafan and some others. it was further writing to the Congress. Categories: Constitutional Law 1 Nitafan vs." ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. Within forty-eight hours from the income tax to members of the Judiciary. CIR that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries FACTS: during their continuance in office. that declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from Endencia and Jugo vs. the filing of this petition. for a period not exceeding sixty days. The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with their salaries. Articles VIII. Nos. because Although the intent may have been obscured by the failure to include in if there is. of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should their salary shall not be decreased. all with stations in Manila. early on. Income Tax. Taxing Salaries of Judicial Officers a deduction of the withholding tax from the salaries of the members of Diminution Of Their Compensation as Fixed by Law—The doctrine the Supreme Court. David.—The of the Supreme Court. Article VIII of the the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent 1987 Constitution mandating that during their continuance in office. Nitafan vs.

without adds that as a member of the Convention that drafted the 1973 need of receiving evidence as in an ordinary adversary court proceeding. in the same manner. the separate opinions they have respectively signed. operating precisely where there is no actual fighting. pursuant to General Order No.” cognizance not only of the courts but of all observant people residing Justice Barredo. for his part. Baker. The present hold that the question is political and therefore its determination is state of martial law in the Philippines is peculiarly Filipino and fits into beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. with whom Justices Makasiar. The argument that matter of policy implicit in the Constitution itself the Court should abstain while armed hostilities go on in several provinces in Mindanao there are from interfering with the Executive’s Proclamation. But the Court should act. and Montenegro vs. either briefly or in great detail. Justice Barredo opines. 3 . it places no such prohibition or qualification The Supreme Court may review. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply Teehankee and Muñoz Palma. as events shortly before said proclamation clearly 1972) placing the entire country under martial law. in suspending the writ. Constitution he believes that “the Convention put an imprimatur on the that a state of rebellion existed in the country when Proclamation No. on the other hand. if not in session.set aside by the President. 1971. demonstrated. Congress may. It reception of evidence being contemplated for purposes of such judicial includes subversion of the most subtle kind. distinguished from the power of judicial review in ordinary civil or criminal cases. through printed news sheets or rumors disseminated in It may be noted that the postulate of non-justiciability as discussed in whispers. Justice Esguerra funds. Justice Barredo. The petitioners were arrested and held whether. calling attention to the fact that such proclamation or suspension. On this Point the Court is practically unanimous. which was the issue in Lansang. to the people. may inquire into the validity of Proclamation No. draws a distinction between the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. the judicial power vested in different “Whereases” of the proclamation are of common knowledge. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. of necessity for the exercise by the President of his power under the A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution to declare martial law. is the existence of conditions claimed to justify the exercise the issue of justiciability is of not much more than academic interest for of the power to declare martial law subject to judicial inquiry? Is the purposes of arriving at a judgment. it by the Constitution being plenary and all-embracing. fifth-column activities maintains that the findings of the President on the existence of the including sabotage and intelligence — all these are part of the rebellion grounds for the declaration of martial law are final and conclusive upon which by their nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. otherwise he shall be released. convene in accordance with its rules while the Bill of Rights prohibits suspension of the privilege except in the without need of a call. Stated more Insofar as my own opinion is concerned the cleavage in the Court on concretely. invasion. necessarily clandestine and action. any citizen. shall. and that with national security. charter in him alone. extend such proclamation or 91 Phil. The Congress. for which the responsibility is vested by the therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all over the country. Arrayed on the side of justiciability are Justices Castro. 2 of the President (September 22. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative whether or not there is such necessity is wholly confided to him and assemblies. ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of rebellion in a when its abstention from acting would result in manifest and palpable modern setting. particularly in regard to the existence of a state of General Order No. his responsibility being directly courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. the finding by the Justices just mentioned is that there “for being participants or for having given aid and comfort in the was no arbitrariness in the President’s proclamation of martial law conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take pursuant to the 1935 Constitution. or by theories of foreign authors in political science. Many of the facts and events recited in detail in the not per se beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. is there expressly days. and or directly connected with. Antonio. in the separate opinions filed his act. The factual bases for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Upon the initiative of the President. The recognition of justiciability accorded to the person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three question in Lansang. Fernandez and Aquino martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas concur. instances specified therein. holding that the decision as to Constitution. would thus apply the principle laid down in Lansang although that case refers to the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I am not unduly exercised by question political or justiciable in character? Americas decisions on the subject written in another age and political RULING: Justices Makasiar. indeed had been powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. Fernandez and Aquino clime.” The test is not whether the President’s decision is correct but by the individual Justices. They cannot be counteracted effectively unless recognized and dealt Garcia. 1081. proposition that the validity of a martial law proclamation and its 1081 was issued. 882 (1952). 2 was issued by the President in the exercise of the rebellion in the country. he did or did not act arbitrarily. December 11. He disagrees vehemently with the ruling in Lansang vs. 1972). procurement of arms and material. holds that Lansang suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress. believes that political questions are here at the time. and on that premise emphasizes the factor thereon within thirty days from its filing. the to Barcelon vs. It does not consist simply of armed clashes between transgression of the Constitution proven by facts of judicial notice. and is limited to ascertaining “merely whether he (the Aquino vs Enrile [59 SCRA183] President) has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction. They hold that the constitutional only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in. Castañeda. 87 (1905). dealing as it does none in other regions except in isolated pockets in Luzon. raising of those opinions involves disparate methods of approach. the Courts. no organized and identifiable groups on fields of their own choosing. sufficiency of the proclamation may be inquired into by the Court. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military therefore is not subject to judicial inquiry. but that as a The state of rebellion continues up to the present. FACTS: The events which form the background of these nine petitions not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of are related. Justice Fernandez In the first place I am convinced (as are the other Justices). it should be emphasized. if the need not be overturned. exacerbated. in an appropriate proceeding filed by with respect to the declaration of martial law. and advocates a return with in that context. Esguerra. Fernando. It was a matter of contemporary history within the continuation is political and non-justiciable in character. Underground propaganda. He invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. recruitment of armed and ideological adherents. had not disappeared. The reasons are given at length in no traditional patterns or judicial precedents. 5 Phil. Applying this test. indeed does not control in these cases. any of habeas corpus. the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of Justice Antonio. and must promulgate its decision rebellion in the country. and I concur with them in that over the Government by force …” finding. finds that there is no dispute as to the existence of a state of corpus or the extension thereof. 1081 (September 21. 42 SCRA 448. within twenty-four hours following and his power to proclaim martial law. Justice ISSUE: The first major issue raised by the parties is whether this Court Teehankee merely refrained from discussing it.

the political-or-justiciable question controversy indeed. Aquino has become moot and purposeless as a consequence of the general referendum of July 27-28. Sec. 1. sovereign capacity at the scheduled election. 3(2)] that “all proclamations. Macapagal. it is elementary that this Court assumes no jurisdiction over cited constitutional provision that the incumbent President actually petitions for declaratory relief. and it is equally elementary that suit or petition in intervention for the purpose nor repudiated the incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to scheduled election. “resignation” did not create the actual vacancy required in Section 9. A petition questioning ISSUE: the clarity ofaprovision in the proposed 1986 Constitution states no cause of action it being of common knowledge that 4 . all “such proclamations. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under Snap presidential election this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May. which coincides with that of other members of the Court as stated in their opinions. vacate his office and turn it over to the Speaker of the Batasang in effect to a suit against the incumbent President of the Republic. Finally. have turned the issue into a political question (from the purely justiciable issue of the questioned On the effect of the transitory provision Justice Muñoz Palma withholds constitutionality of the act due to the lack of the actual vacancy of the her assent to any sweeping statement that the same in effect validated. Executive Secretary (L-36142. synchronization of elections. COMELEC Claiming that the said provision "is not clear" as to whom it refers. he FACTS: then asks the Court "to declare and answer the question of the construction and definiteness as to who. 1986. The petition is dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction and for lack for Senator Pelaez submits that President Marcos’ letter of conditional cause of action. 1992. quotes the first paragraph of Section 5 (not Section 7 as including citizens between 15 and 18 years. Aquino the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as cannot be entertained the President being immune from suit President by taking his oath office ten (10) days after his proclamation. their standard bearers have not filed any President Corazon C. if he so desires.. 1986 (Snap elected President Ferdinand E. is that the question of validity of Is BP 883 unconstitutional. voted affirmatively on the erroneously stated) of Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution. as a lawyer. Do you want President Marcos to continue beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under Martial In a petition for declaratory relief impleading no respondents. 1973).. binding and effective even after … the ratification of The petitions in these cases are dismissed and the prayer for the this Constitution …” To be sure. or done by HELD: the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land and shall remain valid. Declaratory Relief. 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory provision and prohibit the holding of the elections of the 1973 Constitution [Art. Whatever may be the nature of the exercise of that power by the President in the beginning — whether or not purely Sec. Constitutional Law. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President political and therefore non-justiciable — this Court is precluded from elected in the February 7. Philippine Bar Association vs. election on February 7. Aquino. any People Power Revolt inquiry by this Court in the present cases into the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases for the proclamation of martial law — 1. Same. petitioner. More importantly. rather than insist on strict compliance with the 677). The question has been laid to rest by our required 10 votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional. Same: Same. the petition amounts resign. 5. in as much as there are less than the however. In re: Bermudez continue in office beyond 1973. can 2.Secondly. instructions. 1986 election is. elections) for the offices of President and Vice President of the Tolentino being referred to under the said Section 7 (sic) of ARTICLE Philippines. Article 7 of the Constitution which could be the basis of the holding of a special election for President and Vice President earlier than the regular Jurisdiction. issued.as the Court did not the conduct of national affairs and in our relations with other countries. decision in Javellana vs. and acts promulgated. issue any restraining order. Law?” The overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots. legal. fair and honest. 1992. since there is no issue instructions. his office. orders. A is: “irrevocably vacat(ing) the position of President effective only when petition directed in effect againstPresident Corazon C. The question was thereby removed from the area of which provides in full as follows: presidential power under the Constitution and transferred to the seat of sovereignty itself. The Court cannot stand in the way of President. so long as the election is clean. Pambansa as acting President. the President. there is an attempt in these cases to issuance of an injunction restraining respondents from holding the resuscitate the issue of the effectivity of the new Constitution.” All that she concedes is that the transitory provision merely letting the people decide through their ballot. 1973. my view. decrees. . BP 883 in conflict with the constitution in that it allows the XVIII of the TRANSITORY PROVISIONS of the proposed 1986 President to continue holding office after the calling of the special Constitution refers to. March 31. proposal. Actions. or done by the incumbent more political than the election. hereby extended to noon of June 30. and acts promulgated.” during her incumbency. Marcos and Vice-President Arturo M. is behind us now. mandate. The letter states that the President assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. 50 SCRA 30. election. decrees. and of course by the existing political realities both in The events that have transpired since December 3. The question propounded to the voters was: “Under the (1973) Constitution. President’s office) which can be truly decided only by the people in their in the constitutional sense. issued. The Supreme Court elections for such positions in 1987. 43 SCRA The unified opposition. Lawyers League vs. XVII. among the present incumbent 11 petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement of BP 883 President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President Salvador Laurel and the which calls for special national elections on February 7.” and as such therefore “are subject to judicial review when proper under the Constitution. and should the Supreme Court therefore stop Proclamation No. They have not insisted that President Marcos vacate court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. for purposes of applying its judicial yardstick to the act of the sovereign. All that. .—Prescinding from petitioner’s lack of personality to sue or to bring this action (Tan vs. either to give the gives them “the imprimatur of a law but not of a constitutional incumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president.

—Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law.— Justice of the Court of Appeals on 1980. .Then. The said cases were dismissed outright by this Court.O. . autonomy of the barangays to ensure their fullest development as self- Laurel. No. L-76180 October 24. 5. Bermudez. petitioner was appointed to be Deputy Minister of Justice in operative. Held: The Court held that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to E." Similarly. and limits the President's power to "general the claim that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution.When the appointments were signed by Pres. Local Government." 5 . Same.O. Aquino and Vice-Pres.O. Facts: Same. . and to no other persons.A motion for reconsideration was later filed by Associate Justices Campos Jr. there was a reorganization of the entire government. 33 is considered as an entirely new court. Laurel. Puno. There is no inconsistency between the term of six . usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence. Thus.A Screening Committee for the reorganization of the Intermediate Appelate Court and lower courts recommended the return of petitioner as Associate Justice of the new court of Appeals and assigned him the rank of number 11 in the roster of appellate court justices. No. 8 Art. Issue: WON the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the old Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court existing before the promulgation of E. X of 1987 Constitution provides that the term of office of elective local officials. It is a policy of the State to guarantee and promote the incumbent President Corazon C. No. COMELEC . De Leon vs. therefore. Same. including the Judiciary. 1987 . otherwise. Same. the term of office of six (6) years 1.The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's request. and provides for the extension of their reliant communities. was first appointed as Associate (6) years for elective Barangay officials and the 1987 Constitution.On 1984. therefore. it would run counter to the provisions of Section 2 of E. he ceased to be a member of the Judiciary. Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. 145 SCRA 160. In Re: Saturnino V. it being a matter of public record and common public Action. the Court of Appeals was reorganized and became the between the term of six (6) years for elective Barangay officials and the Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to BP Blg. petitioner alleged that the change in seniority ranking was due to "inadvertence" of the President. . It was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of the people power in 1986. No. Contrary to the stand of respondents. . Aquino was iikewise sought to be questioned with barangays form a part. No. Reynato S. No. Aquino and Vice-President Salvador H. De Leon vs. No. except barangay officials which shall be determined by law. supervision" over local governments. Security of tenure of barangay knowledge that tha Constitutional Commission refers therein to officials. The Court of Appeals that was established under E. Aquino. Same. petitioner's seniority ranking changes from number 11 to 26. the 1987 Constitution ensures the Constitution.On 1983. 129. the second paragraph of the cited section provides for of 1982 declares it "a policy of the State to guarantee and promote the the holding on the second Monday of May. and Javellana who are affected by the ordered correction. the legitimacy of the government of autonomy of local governments and of political subdivisions of which the President Corazon C. of Sec. pursuant to Section 3.the officials referred to in the 1st par. Revolution is defined as "the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it. different and distinct from the courts existing before E. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by the 1987 Revolution. radical and fundamental change in the government or political system. 153 SCRA 602. Art XVIII there Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution of are incumbent Pres.—Petitioners must now be held to have acquired term to noon of June 30.—The petition furthermore states no cause of action. 33. 1987 Constitution. Defensor Santiago vs. In previous cases. Sec. Prohibition. Puno wrote a letter to the Court seeking the correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals. In re: Letter of Reynato Puno provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.O. .O. 1986 Same. be considered as still . Hence. 33.After February 1986 EDSA Revolution.They alleged that petitioner could not claim reappointment because the courts where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last appointment. Esguerra. the Ministry of Justice." or "as sudden. 1992 of the first regular autonomy of the barangays to ensure their fullest development as self- elections for the President and Vice-President under said 1986 reliant communities. we find nothing inconsistent . 1992 for purposes of synchronization of security of tenure specially considering that the Barangay Election Act elections. Term of office of local elective officials.The petitioner. 33. L-78059 August 31.Petitioner Justice Reynato S. and the same should. 1987 Constitution shall be three years. The present Court of Appeals is a new entity. Esguerra ambiguity or vagueness of the aforequoted provision is manifestly gratuitous. Petitioner’s allegation of 1.