Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno of the Court of Appeals, A.M No.

90-11-
2697-CA, June 29, 1992

FACTS:

On June 1980, petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno was first appointed
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. On January 1983, the Court of Appeals was
reorganized into the Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
"An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary. Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other
Purposes”. On November 1984, petitioner accepted an appointment that caused his
departure from the Judiciary.

After the EDSA Revolution in 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive
Order No. 33, reorganizing the entire government including the Judiciary resulting in the
reorganization of the Intermediate Appellate Court into a new Court of Appeals. The
Screening Committee of this new Court of Appeals recommended the return of the
petitioner as Associate Justice and was given the seniority rank of eleven 11. When
President Aquino signed the appointments, however, the petitioner’s rank went from 11
to 26.

Petitioner thereafter alleged that the change in his seniority ranking could only have
been due to some mistake since Executive Order No. 33 itself read: “There is hereby
created a Court of Appeals which shall consist of a Presiding Justice and fifty Associate
Justices who shall be appointed by the President… Any Member who is reappointed to
the Court after rendering service in any other position in the government shall retain the
precedence to which he was entitled under his original appointment, and his service in the
Court shall, for all intents and purpose be considered as continuous and uninterrupted."
Petitioner argues that President Aquino is presumed to have intended to comply with her
own Executive Order No. 33.

ISSUES:

Is petitioner Associate Justice Puno, in his appointment to the new Court of Appeals
created by Executive Order No. 33, still entitled to the same seniority ranking he held in
the prior Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court?

RATIO:

The Supreme Court ruled that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity different
and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior
to Executive No. 33.

The Court defined a revolution as being the complete overthrow of the established
government and what occurs when the legal order of a community is nullified and
replaced by a new order. It is an inherent right of the people to cast out their rulers,
change their policy or effect radical reforms in government by force or general uprising -
it is a direct exercise of the power of the people. In this case, when the 1986 Revolution
happened the existing legal order had ceased to be obeyed by the people, and so the Court
of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court phased out as part of the legal system,
abolished by the revolution.

Considering this, the Court clarified that the last sentence of Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. No.
129, as amended by Executive No. 33, refers to prospective situations and not to
retroactive ones. And even if Executive Order No. 33 did not abolish the seniority
ranking from previous appointment, President Aquino could have definitely intended to
disregard or set it aside when she made her appointments to the new Court of Appeals.

President Aquino, at the time of the issuance of the appointments, wielded both the
power of the Executive and Legislative by virtue of her revolutionary powers. Thus she
had in fact modified or disregarded the rule embodied in B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
Executive Order No. 33.