Facts

In this case petitioner Vargas assails the constitutionality of section 14 of the People’s Court Act
(Commonwealth Act No. 682). The assailed provision is written below.
SEC. 14. Any Justice of the Supreme Court who held any office or position
under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the government called Philippine
Republic may not sit and vote in any case brought to that Court under section thirteen
hereof in which the accused is a person who held any office or position under either or
both the Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippine Republic or any branch,
instrumentality and/or agency thereof.
If, on account of such disqualification, or because of any of the grounds or
disqualification of judges, in Rule 126, section 1 of the Rules of Court, or on account of
illness, absence of temporary disability the requisite number of Justices necessary to
constitute a quorum or to render judgment in any case is not present, the President may
designate such number of Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-large of First Instance, or
Cadastral Judges, having none of the disqualifications set forth in said section one
hereof, as may be necessary to sit temporarily as Justice of said Court, in order to form
a quorum or until a judgment in said case is reached.
Vargas assails the section upon the following grounds: (1) It provides for the qualification of
members of the SC, other than those provided in Sec. 6, Art. 8 of the 1935 Constitution
, which reads:
“No person may be appointed member of the SC unless he has been 5 years a citizen of the PH, is at least
40 years of age, and has for 10 years or more been a judge of a court of record or engaged in the practice
of law in the PH,” (2) it authorizes the appointment of members of the SC who do not possess the
qualifications set forth in said 
provision of the Constitution, (3) it removes from office members of the
SC by means of a procedure other than impeachment, (4) it deprives the Commission on Appointments of
Congress of its constitutional prerogative to confirm or reject 
appointments to the SC, (5) it creates 2
Supreme Courts, (6) it impairs the rule-making power of the SC, (7) it is a bill of attainder, (8) it denies the
equal protection of the laws, (9) it is an ex post facto law, (10) it amends the Constitution 
by a procedure
not sanctioned in the Constitution, and (11) it destroys the independence of the Judiciary, and it permits the
“packing” of the SC in certain cases, either 
by the Congress or by the President. 

The Solicitor General in support of the opposition opposes the contentions.

Issue:
1. W/N Congress had the power to add to the pre-existing grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the
SC – NO
2. W/N a person may act as a Justice of the SC who has not been appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Commission of Appoints pursuant to the Constitution – NO
3. W/N by the method of “designation” created by Sec. 14, a Judge of First Instance, Judge at large of
First Instance or Cadastral Judged designated by the President under the same section can
constitutionally sit temporarily as Justice of the SC – NO

Ruling
1st Issue: No the legislature cannot pass a law repugnant to the Constitution.
Under Article 8 the Constitution provides how the court shall be composed, how long they shall
hold office, jurisdiction, power and responsibilities of the Supreme Court. If section 14 were effective
members of the court would be prohibited from exercising power ordained to them by the constitution. The
court writes, “For repugnancy to result it is not necessary that there should be an actual removal of the
disqualified Justice from his office for, as above demonstrated, were it not for the challenged section 14
there would have been an uninterrupted continuity in the tenure of the displaced Justice and in his exercise
of the powers and fulfillment of the duties appertaining to his office, saving only proper cases or
disqualification under Rule 126. What matters here is not only that the Justice affected continue to be a
member of the Court and to enjoy the emoluments as well as to exercise the other powers and fulfill the
other duties of his office, but that he be left unhampered to exercise all the powers and fulfill all the
responsibilities of said office in all cases properly coming before his Court under the constitution, again
without prejudice to proper cases of disqualification under Rule 126. Any statute enacted by the legislature,
which would impede him in this regard, in the words of this Court in In re Guariña, supra, citing
Marbury vs. Madison, supra, "simply can not become law." Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of
judicial power.

2nd Issue: No, members of the Supreme Court must be appointed with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments.
Designation authorized in Section 14 of the assailed law is not in compliance with the
requirement. The clause “unless otherwise provided by law” in Section 4 of the constitution cannot be
construed to authorized legislation that would alter composition of the SC even for a brief period in time.

3rd Issue: No, a Judge of First Instance, Judge at large of First Instance or Cadastral Judged
designated by the President under Section 14 cannot constitutionally sit temporarily as Justice of the
SC.
There is no authorization for any change in the constitutional composition of the SC or the
performance of its functions by any but its constitutional members. Designees cannot be members in the
view that they have not been chosen pursuant to the Constitution.