JORGE B. VARGAS v. EMILIO RILLORAZA, ET AL.

(G.R. No. L-1612, February 26, 1948)

PERFECTO, J., concurring:

FACTS:

Petitioner assails the validity of Sec. 14 of the People's Court Act, Commonwealth Act 682, which
provided that the President could designate Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-large of First Instance or
Cadastral Judges to sit as substitute Justices of the Supreme Court in treason cases without them
necessarily having to possess the required constitutional qualifications of a regular Supreme Court
Justice.

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 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.

Opinion:

With such repugnancy one should wonder how such an act come to pass when it clearly violates the
constitution. Section 14 of people’s court act no. 682 is not only unfair but also unjust. We should try
and adopt the approach of formalism in order to have a better view and judgement on cases like these
because sometime ethics and morality is stopping the law for what is really is and makes the judge’s
ruling subjective.