Scribd
Upload
112 views2 pages

Vallenzuela VS Vallarta

1. The case involved the appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as judges of RTC courts by the President on March 30, 1998, which fell within the two-month ban on appointments before the next presidential elections according to Article 7 Section 15 of the Constitution. 2. The issue was whether the President can fill vacancies in the judiciary pursuant to Article 8 Section 4 and 9, which require appointments to be made within 90 days, during the appointment ban period of Article 7 Section 15. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the appointments void as they fall within the prohibition of Article 7 Section 15, and that Article 8 Sections 4 and 9 do not override the

Uploaded by

MA. TERESA DADIVAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views2 pages

Vallenzuela VS Vallarta

1. The case involved the appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as judges of RTC courts by the President on March 30, 1998, which fell within the two-month ban on appointments before the next presidential elections according to Article 7 Section 15 of the Constitution. 2. The issue was whether the President can fill vacancies in the judiciary pursuant to Article 8 Section 4 and 9, which require appointments to be made within 90 days, during the appointment ban period of Article 7 Section 15. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the appointments void as they fall within the prohibition of Article 7 Section 15, and that Article 8 Sections 4 and 9 do not override the

Uploaded by

MA. TERESA DADIVAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VALLENZUELA VS VALLARTA

298 SCRA 408 (1998)

FACTS:

On March 30, 1998, The President signed appointments of Hon. Mateo


Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta as Judges of RTC-Bago City and
Cabanatuan City, respectively. These appointments were deliberated, as it
seemed to be expressly prohibited by Art 7 Sec 15 of the Constitution:
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
endof 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."A
meeting was held on March 9, 1998 by the Judicial and Bar Council to discuss
the constitutionality of appointments to the Court of Appeals (CA) in light of
the forthcoming 1998 Presidential elections. Senior Associate Justice Florenz
Regalado, Consultant of the Council and Member of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, was in the position that “election ban had no application to the
CA based on the Commission’s records”. This hypothesis was then submitted
to the President for consideration together with the Council’s nominations for
8 vacancies in the CA. The Chief Justice (CJ) received on April 6, 1998, an
official communication from the Executive Secretary transmitting the
appointments of 8 Associate Justices of CA duly signed on March 11, 1998
(day immediately before the commencement of the ban on appointments),
which implies that the President’s Office did not agree with the hypothesis.
The President, addressed to the JBC, requested on May 4, 1998 the
transmission of the“list of final nominees” for the vacancy in view of the 90
days imposed by the constitution (from Feb 13, date present vacancy
occurred). In behalf of the JBC, CJ sent the reply on May 6 that no session has
been scheduled after the May elections for the reason that they apparently
did not share the same view (hypothesis) proposed by the JBC shown by the
uniformly dated March 11, 1998 appointments. However, it appeared that the
Justice Secretary and the other members of the Council took action without
waiting for the CJ reply. This prompted CJ to call for a meeting on May 7. On
this day,CJ received a letter from the President in reply of the May 6 letter
where the President expressed his view that Article 7 Sec 15 only applied to
executive appointments, the whole article being entitled “EXECUTIVE DEPT”.
He posited that appointments in the Judiciary have special and specific
provisions, as follows:Article 8 Sec 4"The Supreme Court shall be composed of
a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof."Article 8 Sec 9"The
Members of the Supreme Court and judges in lower courts shall be appointed
by the President from the list of at least three nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.
On May 12, CJ received from Malacanang, the appointments of the 2 Judges of
the RTC mentioned. Considering the pending proceedings and deliberations
on this matter, the Court resolved by refraining the appointees from taking
their oaths. However, Judge Valenzuela took oath in May 14, 1998 claiming he
did so without knowledge on the on going deliberations. It should be noted
that the originals of the appointments for both judges had been sent to and
received by the CJ on May 12 and is still in the latter’s office and had not been
transmitted yet. According to Judge Valenzuela, he did so because of the May
7 Malacanang copy of his appointment. In construing Article 7 and 8: when
there are no presidential election, Art8 shall apply where vacancies in SC shall
VALLENZUELA VS VALLARTA
298 SCRA 408 (1998)
be filled within 90 days otherwise prohibition in Art7 must be considered
where the President shall not make any appointments. According to Fr.
Bernas, the reason for prohibition is in order not to tie the hands of the
incoming Pres through midnight appointments.

ISSUE:

WON the President can fill vacancies in the judiciary pursuant to Article 8 Sec
4 and 9, during the appointment ban period stated in Article 7 Sec 15.

HELD:

Article 8 Sec 4 and 9 simply mean that the “President is required to fill
vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless
prohibited by Article7 Sec15.
Thus, the President is neither required to make appointments to the courts
nor allowed to do so. Likewise, the prohibition on appointments comes into
effect only once every six years. The Court also pointed out that Article8 Sec4
and 9 should prevail over Article7 Sec15 as they may be considered later
expressions of the people when they adopted the Constitution. The Supreme
Court, in an en banc decision, declared the appointments signed by the
President on March 30, 1998 of Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta VOID. They
are ordered to cease and desist from discharging the office of Judge of the
Courts to which they were respectively appointed on the said date. They come
within the operation of the prohibition on appointments. While the filling of
judiciary vacancies is in the public interest, there is no compelling reason to
justify such appointment within the 2 months appointment ban. In view of
Valenzuela’s oath taking, the authenticity of the letter of which was not
verified from the Office of the Court Administrator, SC reiterated the standing
practice and procedures in appointments to the Judiciary that originals of all
appointments are to be sent by the Office of the President to the Office of the
Chief Justice. The Clerk of Court of the SC, in the Chief Justice’s behalf, will
advice the appointee of their appointments as well as the date of
commencement of the pre-requisite orientation seminar to be conducted by
the Philippine Judicial Academy for new judges.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy