CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

TOPIC JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT - APPOINTMENT AUTHOR 6_Loda

CASE IN RE: VALENZUELA AM NO. 98-5-01-SC

GR NO
TITLE

TICKLER 2 inconsistent Consti provisions (same facts ng kay rochelle with additional DATE November 9, 1998
discussion on opinions sa notes!! Hehe)
DOCTRINE During the period stated in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution — "(t)wo months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to the end his term" — the President is neither required to make
appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so; and that Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that
the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless
prohibited by Section 15 of Article VII. In other words, insofar as appointments to the Judiciary is concerned,
Secs. 4(1) and 9, Art. VIII is the general rule, and Sec. 15, Art. VII is an exception.

FACTS Summarized Facts:

 The question presented for resolution in the administrative matter at bar is whether, during the period
of the ban on appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution, the President is
nonetheless required to fill vacancies in the judiciary, in view of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII. A
corollary question is whether he can make appointments to the judiciary during the period of the ban in
the interest of public service.
 Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta were appointed by the then President Ramos on
March 30, 1998 as Judges of the RTC, Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City,
respectively.
 On May 12, 1998, the Chief Justice received from Malacanang the appointments of two (2) Judge of the
RTC mentioned above. The appointments were questioned on the view that they were made during the
period of the ban on appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.
 The issue was already ventilated at the meeting of the Judicial and Bar Council on March 9, 1998
regarding the constitutionality of appointments of eight (8) Associate Justices to the Court of Appeals,
specifically, in light of the forthcoming presidential elections. Attention was drawn to Section 15, Article
VII of the Constitution reading as follows:

Sec. 15, Art. VII: Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of
his, term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.

Sec. 4 (1), Art. VIII: The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. ** **. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

 Also pertinent although not specifically discussed is Section 9 of the same Article VIII which provides
that for the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments — from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Council for every vacancy — within ninety days from the submission of the
list.

 The Court issued a Resolution which states that “pending the foregoing proceedings and the deliberation
by the Court on the matter, and until further orders, no action be taken on the appointments of Hon.
Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta which in the meantime shall be held in abeyance”.
 In compliance with the foregoing Resolution, Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta filed before the Court
the required pleadings and other documents. It is noted that Hon. Valenzuela had already taken his Oath
of Office a Judge on May 14, 1998 and explained that he did so because on May 7, 1998, he “received
from Malacanang copy of his appointment which contained the following direction:
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

“By virtue hereof, you may qualify and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office.”

 The Court then deliberated on the pleadings and documents above mentioned, in relation to the facts
and circumstances on record and thereafter resolved to promulgate the following opinion.

(Petitioner’s Points)
XXX

(Respondent’s Points)
XXX
ISSUE/S  Substantive
1. Whether or not Sec. 15, Art. VII, prohibiting midnight appointments, is applicable to the appointments
to the Judiciary.
RULING/S  Substantive
1. The Court's view is that during the period stated in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution — "(t)wo
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end his term" — the President
is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so; and that Sections 4(1)
and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the
time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article VII. In other words, insofar as
appointments to the Judiciary is concerned, Secs. 4(1) and 9, Art. VIII is the general rule, and Sec. 15, Art.
VII is an exception.

It appears that Section 15, Article VI is directed against two types of appointments: (1) those made for
buying votes and (2) those made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments
made within the two months preceding a Presidential election and are similar to those which are
declared elections offenses in the Omnibus Election Code, such as:
(a) Vote-buying and vote-selling..
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion, or giving salary increases.

The second type of appointments prohibited by Section 15, Article VII consist of the so-called "midnight"
appointments.

Surely, the prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling
up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases. Temporary vacancies can abide the period of
the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years.
Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. But prohibited
appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects. They may, as earlier pointed out, their
making is considered an election offense.

To be sure, instances may be conceived of the imperative need for an appointment, during the period of
the ban, not only in the executive but also in the Supreme Court. This may be the case should the
membership of the Court be so reduced that it will have no quorum, or should the voting on a particularly
important question requiring expeditious resolution be evenly divided. Such a case, however, is covered
by neither Section 15 of Article VII nor Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII.

NOTES Different Opinions on the Inconsistency

 Senior Assoc. Justice Regalado, who had been a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission,
expressed his view that the election ban had no application to appointments to the Court of Appeals.
 March 11, 1998: President signed appointments of 8 Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals; such
appointments were later transmitted to the Chief Justice. The fact that all the appointments had been
signed on March 11, 1998 — the day immediately before the commencement of the ban on
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution — impliedly but no less clearly
indicated that the President's Office did not agree with the hypothesis that appointments to the
Judiciary were not covered by said ban.
 In view thereof, Chief Justice resolved to defer consideration of nominations for the vacancy in the
Supreme Court created by the retirement of Associate Justice Ricardo J. Francisco
 In an exchange of letters between the CJ and the President, both stated their opinions on the matter as
follows:
o President expressed opinion that the election-ban provision in Sec. 15, Art. VII applies only to
executive appointments, on the basis that Art. VII is entitled “EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Further
proof of his theory "is the fact that appointments to the judiciary have special, specific
provisions applicable to them" (citing Article VIII, Sec, 4 (1) and Article VIII, Section 9. Thus, he
"firmly and respectfully reiterate(d) ** (his) request for the Judicial and Bar Council to
transmit ** the final list of nominees for the lone Supreme Court vacancy."
o CJ responded:
Section 15 of Article VII imposes a direct prohibition on the President: he "shall not make
appointments" within the period mentioned, and since there is no specification of which
appointments are proscribed, the same may be considered as applying to all appointments of
any kind and nature. This is the general rule then, the only exception being only as regards
"executive positions" as to which "temporary appointments may be made within the interdicted
period "when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety." As the exception makes reference only to "executive" positions, it would seem that
"judicial" positions are covered by the general rule.

On the other hand, Section 4 (1) of Article VIII, requires that any vacancy in the Supreme Court
"shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof." Unlike Section 15 Article VII, the
duty of filling the vacancy is not specifically imposed on the President; hence, it may be inferred
that it is a duty shared by the Judicial and Bar Council and the President.

[On the construction of the requirement of filling in the Court within 90 days] One interpretation
that immediately suggests itself is that Section 4 (1), Article VIII is a general provision while
Section 15, Article VII is a particular one; that is to say, normally, when there are no presidential
elections — which after all, occur only every six years — Section 4 (1), Article VIII shall apply:
vacancies in the Supreme Court shall be filled within 90 days; but when (as now) there are
presidential elections, the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII comes into play: the President
shall not make any appointments.