G.R. No.

L-1612 February 26, 1948

JORGE B. VARGAS, petitioner,

vs.
EMILIO RILLORAZA, JOSE BERNABE, MANUEL ESCUDERO, Judges of People’s Court, and THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
- The Petitioner assails the constitutionality of Section 14 of the Commonwealth Act No. 682 (The People’s Court Act)
due to the following reasons: (a) It provides for qualification of members of the Supreme Court, other than those
provided in Section 6 Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution; (b) It authorizes the appointment of members of the
Supreme Court who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Section 6 Article VIII of the same Constitution; (c) It
removes from office the members of the Supreme Court by means of a procedure other than impeachment; and, (d) It
creates two Supreme Courts.
- Essentially, it grants power upon the President to 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/s:
- Whether or not Section 14 of Commonwealth Act 682 is constitutional

Ruling/Held:

- NO. 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. The infringement becomes
aggravated where a majority of the members of the court are replaced by judges of first instance, which creates a distinct
Supreme Court within the Supreme Court, which is grounds for its unconstitutionality as there can only be one Supreme
Court under the Constitution. For the foregoing considerations, it is declared and ordered: (a) that section 14 of the
People’s Court Act is unconstitutional in the respects specified in the body of this resolution; and (b) that this case be
dealt with henceforward in pursuance of and in harmony with this resolution. So ordered.

Separate Opinion:

FLORES, J., concurring:

- It is the responsibility and the voluntary obligations of Attorneys and Law-abiding citizens alike to grant their
unconditional support to the Constitution of the Philippines as its creation manifests the hopes of the people
for a just, orderly, and lawful nation, and their hopes and blessings for independence and democracy. And
from this Constitution, it is assumed that laws are not created repugnant to it- however the case en banc is an
apparent violation of the very body of laws that holds and defines the very sovereign lands we call home.
Never is the loyalty of the Filipino people to the Constitution so challenged than when we are faced by a
daunting adversary. Nevertheless, in the face of such adversity, the need to remain persisting and unwavering
becomes ever more imperative. I hereby submit my concurring opinion to the judgement of all our people, to
history and to the generations of Filipinos still unborn, confident that it carries all that We know and all that
We are.