You are on page 1of 2

In Re Appointments dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B.

Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24,
Cabananatuan City, respectively.
A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC

November 9, 1998

NARVASA, C.J.
Pertinent Provisions:
Article VII of the Constitution
Sec. 15. 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.
Article VIII of the Constitution
Sec. 4 (1) 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.
Sec. 9 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.

FACTS:
Referred to the Supreme Court En Banc by the Chief Justice are the appointments signed by the
President under date of March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta
as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City,
respectively. The appointments were received at the Chief Justice's chambers on May 12, 1998.
The referral was made in view of the serious constitutional issue concerning said appointments.
March 9, 1998 - A meeting of JBC was set to discuss the constitutionality of appointments to the
Court of Appeals, specifically, in the light of the forthcoming presidential elections. Attention was
drawn to Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution on the prohibition of appointments 2 months
immediately before the next presidential election. However, appointments to fill vacancies in the
Supreme Court during the period mentioned in Sec.15 could seemingly be justified by another
provision of the same Constitution Section 4 (1) of Article VIII and Sec. 9.
The view was then expressed by Senior Assoc. Justice Regalado that the election ban had no
application to appointments to the Court of Appeals. Without any extended discussion or any prior
research and study on the part of the other Members of the JBC, this hypothesis was accepted,
and was then submitted to the President for consideration, together with the Council's nominations
for eight (8) vacancies in the Court of Appeals.
April 6 - Chief Justice received an official communication from the Executive Secretary transmitting
the appointments of eight (8) Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals all of which had been duly
signed on March 11, 1998 by the President. In view of the fact that all the appointments had been
signed on March 11, 1998 the day immediately before the commencement of the ban on
appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution, this impliedly indicated that the
President agrees with the provision of Sec. 15. A vacancy in the Supreme Court was created with
the retirement of Assoc. Justice Francisco.
May 4 -Chief Justice received a letter from the President, addressed to the JBC, requesting
transmission of the "list of final nominees" for the vacancy "no later than Wednesday, May 6, 1998"
in view of the duty imposed on him by the Constitution "to fill up the vacancy ** within ninety (90)
days from February 13, 1998, the date the present vacancy occurred.

On May 5, Secretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III requested the Chief Justice for "guidance"
respecting the expressed desire of the "regular members" of the JBC to hold a meeting
immediately to fill up the vacancy in the Court in line with the President's letter of May 4.
On May 6, the Chief Justice sent his reply to the President. He began by stating that no sessions
had been scheduled for the Council until after the May elections for the reason that the
appointments should be done before the commencement of the prohibition in Sec. 15.
On May 7, the Chief Justice received a letter from the President in reply to his letter of May 6. The
President expressed the view that "the election-ban provision (Article VII, Sec. 15) ** applies only
to executive appointments or appointments in the executive branch of government," the whole
article being "entitled 'EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT."' He also observed that 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. In view thereof, 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."
May 8, Chief Justice replied that the matter is a delicate one and must thus be dealt with with
utmost circumspection, to avoid any question regarding the validity of an appointment to the Court
at this time, or any accusation of "midnight" appointments or rash hasty action on the part of the
JBC or the President. Chief justice requests the regular Members of the Judicial Bar Council to
defer action on the matter until further device by the Court.
On May 12, 1998, the Chief Justice received from Malacaang the appointments of two (2) Judges
of the Regional Trial Court mentioned above. This places on the Chief Justice the obligation of
acting thereon: i.e., transmitting the appointments to the appointees so that they might take their
oaths and assume the duties of their office. The trouble is that in doing so, the Chief Justice runs
the risk of acting in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, for these appointments appear
prima facie, at least, to be expressly prohibited by Section 15, Article VII of the Charter.
ISSUE: Whether or not 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
HELD:
No. Section 15, Article VII greatly restricts the appointing power of the President during the period
of the ban.The appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta on March 30, 1998 were unquestionably
made during this period. The Court Resolved to declare void the appointments signed by he
President. The rule in statutory construction is to construe the provisions of the Constitution in its
entirety as one single instrument. The contention that Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII should
prevail over Section 15 of Article VII because they may be considered later expressions of the
people when they adopted the Constitution do not apply.
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.
Considering the respectives reasons for the time frames for filling vacancies in the courts and the
restriction on the President's power of appointments, it is this Court's view that, as a general
proposition, in case of conflict, the former should yield to the latter. Surely, the prevention of votebuying 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.

You might also like