by the President.

Any 4ember who is reappointed to the Court after renderin$ ser ice in any other position in the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his ser ice in the Court shall, for all intents and purpose be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.. 3 Petitioner elaborates that President A8uino is presumed to ha e intended to comply with her own 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ so much so that the correction of the inad ertent error would only implement the intent of the President as well as the spirit of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ and will not pro o#e any #ind of constitutional confrontation :between the President and the Supreme Court;. * Petitioner points to the case of Justice )scar 7ictoriano, former Presidin$ Justice of the Court of Appeals who, accordin$ to petitioner, was transferred from his position as Justice of the Court of Appeals to the 4inistry of Justice as Commissioner of Band Re$istration and in 1!'3 was reappointed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner states that his :7ictoriano>s; stint in the Commission of Band Re$istration did not ad ersely affect his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals, for, in his case, 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ was correctly applied. ' %n a resolution of the Court en banc dated &! No ember 1!!", the Court $ranted Justice Puno>s re8uest. ! %t will be noted that before the issuance of said resolution, there was no written opposition to, or comment on petitioner>s aforesaid re8uest. 0he dispositi e portion of the resolution reads@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .%N 7%2= =C2R2)/, the petition of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno for correction of his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals is $ranted. 0he presidin$ Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Conorable Rodolfo A. Nocon, is hereby directed to correct the seniority ran# of Justice Puno from number twel e :1&; to number fi e :?;. Bet copies of this Resolution be furnished the Court Administrator and the Judicial and -ar Council for their $uidance and information.. 1" A motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court en banc dated &! No ember 1!!" was later filed by Associate Justices Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Buis A. Ja ellana, two :&; of the Associate Justices affected by the ordered correction. 0hey contend that the present Court of Appeals is a new Court with fifty one :?1; members and that petitioner could not claim a reappointment to a prior courtD neither can he claim that he was returnin$ to his former court, for the courts where he had pre iously been appointed ceased to e9ist at the date of his last appointment. 11 0he Court en banc in a resolution dated 1* January 1!!& re8uired the petitioner to file his comment on the motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated &! No ember 1!!". %n his Comment, petitioner ar$ues that, by irtue of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ read in relation to -.P. -l$. 1&!, his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals is now number fi e :?; for, thou$h President A8uino rose to power by irtue of a re olution, she had pled$ed at the issuance of Proclamation No. + :otherwise #nown as the /reedom Constitution; that .no ri$ht pro ided under the unratified 1!*+ Constitution :shall; be absent in the /reedom Constitution.. 1& 4oreo er, since the last sentence of Section & of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ irtually reEenacted the last sentence of Sec. +, Chapter 1 of -.P. -l$. 1&!, statutory construction rules on simultaneous repeal and reEenactment mandate, accordin$ to petitioner, the preser ation and enforcement of all ri$hts and liabilities which had accrued under the ori$inal statute. 1+ /urthermore, petitioner a ers that, althou$h the power of appointment is e9ecuti e in character and cannot be usurped by any other branch of the (o ernment, such power can still be re$ulated by the Constitution and by the appropriate law, in this case, by the limits set by 29ecuti e )rder N). ++ 14 for the power of appointment cannot be wielded in iolation of law. 1? Justices Ja ellana and Campos were re8uired by the Court to file their reply to Justice Puno>s comment on their motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court en banc dated &4 January 1!!1.chanrobles.com@cralaw@red %n their Reply and Supplemental Reply, Associate Justices Ja ellana and Campos submit that the appeal or re8uest for correction filed by the petitioner was addressed to the wron$ party. 0hey a er that as petitioner himself had alle$ed the mista#e to be an .inad ertent error. of the )ffice of the President, er$o, he should ha e filed his re8uest for correction also with said )ffice of the President and not directly with the Supreme Court. 13 /urthermore, they point out that petitioner had indeed filed with the )ffice of the President a re8uest or petition for correction of his ran#in$, :seniority; but the same was not appro ed such that his recourse should ha e been an appropriate action before the proper court and impleadin$ all parties concerned. 0he

EN BANC [A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA. June 29, 1992.] LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RE NATO S. !UNO o" #$e Cou%# o" A&&e'() *'#e* 1+ No,e-.e% 1990. RESOLUTION !A/ILLA, J.0 Petitioner Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals, wrote a letter dated 14 No ember 1!!" addressed to this Court, see#in$ the correction of his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals. %t appears from the records that petitioner was first appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on &" June 1!'" but too# his oath of office for said position only on &! No ember 1!'&, after ser in$ as Assistant Solicitor (eneral in the )ffice of the Solicitor (eneral since 1!*4. 1 )n 1* January 1!'+, the Court of Appeals was reor$ani,ed and became the %ntermediate Appellate Court pursuant to -atas Pambansa -l$. 1&! entitled .An Act Reor$ani,in$ the Judiciary. Appropriatin$ /unds 0herefor and /or )ther Purposes.. & Petitioner was appointed Appellate Justice in the /irst Special Cases 1i ision of the %ntermediate Appellate Court. )n * No ember 1!'4, petitioner accepted an appointment to be ceased to be a member of the Judiciary. + 0he aftermath of the 21SA Re olution in /ebruary 1!'3 brou$ht about a reor$ani,ation of the entire $o ernment, includin$ the Judiciary. 0o effect the reor$ani,ation of the %ntermediate Appellate Court and other lower courts, a Screenin$ Committee was created, with the then 4inister of Justice, now Senator Neptali (on,ales as Chairman and then Solicitor (eneral, now Philippine Ambassador to the 5nited Nations Sedfrey )rdo6e, as 7ice Chairman. President Cora,on C. A8uino, e9ercisin$ le$islati e powers by irtue of the re olution, issued 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ to $o ern the aforementioned reor$ani,ation of the Judiciary. 4 0he Screenin$ Committee recommended the return of petitioner as Associate Justice of the new Court of Appeals and assi$ned him the ran# of number ele en :11; in the roster of appellate court <ustices. =hen the appointments were si$ned by President A8uino on &' July 1!'3, petitioner>s seniority ran#in$ chan$ed, howe er, from number ele en :11; to number twenty si9 :&3;. ? Petitioner now alle$es that the chan$e in his seniority ran#in$ could only be attributed to inad ertence for, otherwise, it would run counter to the pro isions of Section & of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, which reads@chanrobles irtual lawlibrary .S2C0%)N &. Section +, Chapter 1 of -atas Pambansa -l$. 1&!, is hereby amended to read as follows@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .S2C. &. )r$ani,ation. A 0here is hereby created a Court of Appeals which shall consist of a Presidin$ Justice and fifty Associate Justices who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. 0he Presidin$ Justice shall be so desi$nated in his appointment and the Associate Justice shall ha e precedence accordin$ to the dates of their respecti e appointments, or when the appointments of two or more shall bear the same date, accordin$ to the order in which their appointments were issued

aforesaid nonEappro al by the )ffice of the President they ar$ue, should be respected by the Supreme Court .not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also their presumed #nowled$e ability and e en e9pertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. 1* for it :the nonEappro al; is a confirmation that petitioner>s seniority ran#in$ at the time of his appointment by President A8uino was, in fact, deliberate and not an .inad ertent error. as petitioner would ha e the Court belie e. 1' 0he resolution of this contro ersy is not a pleasant tas# for the Court since it in ol es not only members of the ne9t hi$hest court of the land but persons who are close to members of this Court. -ut the contro ersy has to be resol ed. 0he core issue in this case is whether the present Court of Appeals is a new court such that it would ne$ate any claim to precedence or seniority admittedly en<oyed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals and %ntermediate Appellate Court e9istin$ prior to 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ or whether the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the Court of Appeals and %ntermediate Appellate Court e9istin$ prior to said 29ecuti e )rder No. ++. %t is the holdin$ of the Court that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the %ntermediate Appellate Court e9istin$ prior to 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, for it was created in the wa#e of the massi e reor$ani,ation launched by the re olutionary $o ernment of Cora,on C. A8uino in the aftermath of the people power :21SA; re olution in 1!'3. A resolution has been defined as .the complete o erthrow of the established $o ernment in any country or state by those who were pre iously sub<ect to it. 1! or as .a sudden, radical and fundamental chan$e in the $o ernment or political system, usually effected with iolence or at least some acts of iolence.. &" %n Felsen>s boo#, (eneral 0heory of Baw and State, it is defined as that which .occurs whene er the le$al order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by the first order itself.. &1 %t was throu$h the /ebruary 1!'3 re olution, a relati ely peaceful one, and more popularly #nown as the .people power re olution. that the /ilipino people tore themsel es away from an e9istin$ re$ime. 0his re olution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the A8uino $o ernment. /rom the natural law point of iew, the ri$ht of re olution has been defined as .an inherent ri$ht of a people to cast out their rulers, chan$e their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of $o ernment or institutions by force or a $eneral uprisin$ when the le$al and constitutional methods of ma#in$ such chan$e ha e pro ed inade8uate or are so obstructed as to be una ailable.. && %t has been said that .the locus of positi e lawEma#in$ power lies with the people of the state. and from there is deri ed .the ri$ht of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any e9istin$ form of $o ernment without re$ard to the e9istin$ constitution.. &+ 0he three :+; clauses that precede the te9t of the Pro isional :/reedom; Constitution, &4 read@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .=C2R2AS, the new $o ernment under President Cora,on C. A8uino was installed throu$h a direct e9ercise of the power of the /ilipino people assisted by units of the New Armed /orces of the PhilippinesD .=C2R2AS, the heroic action of the people was done in defiance of the pro isions of the 1!*+ Constitution, as amendedD

the polity. =here the state operates under a written constitution, its or$ans may be readily determined from a readin$ of its pro isions. )nce such or$ans are ascertained, it becomes an easy matter to locate their enactments. 0he rules in such enactments, alon$ with those in the constitution, comprise the le$al order of that constitutional state.. &! %t is assumed that the le$al order remains as a .culture system. of the polity as lon$ as the latter endures +" and that a point may be reached, howe er, where the le$al system ceases to be operati e as a whole for it is no lon$er obeyed by the population nor enforced by the officials. +1 %t is widely #nown that 4rs. A8uino>s rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional processesD in fact, it was achie ed in iolation of the pro isions of the 1!*+ Constitution as a -atasan$ Pambansa resolution had earlier declared 4r. 4arcos at the winner in the 1!'3 presidential election. +& 0hus it can be said that the or$ani,ation of 4rs. A8uino>s (o ernment which was met by little resistance and her control of the state e idenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other #ey officers of the administration, the departure of the 4arcos Cabinet officials, re ampt of the Judiciary and the 4ilitary si$nalled the point where the le$al system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the /ilipino. 0he Court holds that the Court of Appeals and %ntermediate Appellate Court e9istin$ prior to 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ phased out as part of the le$al system abolished by the re olution and that the Court of Appeals established under 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ was an entirely new court with appointments thereto ha in$ no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts, and that the reference to precedence in ran# contained in the last sentence of Sec. &, -P -l$. No. 1&! as amended by 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ refers to prospecti e situations as distin$uished from retroacti e ones. -ut e en assumin$, ar$uendo, that 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ did not abolish the precedence or seniority ran#in$ resultin$ from pre ious appointment to the Court of Appeals or %ntermediate Appellate Court e9istin$ prior to the 1!'3 re olution, it is belie ed that President A8uino as head of then re olutionary $o ernment, could disre$ard or set aside such precedence or seniority in ran#in$ when she made her appointments to the reor$ani,ed Court of Appeals in 1!'3. %t is to be noted that, at the time of the issuance of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, President A8uino was still e9ercisin$ the powers of a re olutionary $o ernment, encompassin$ both e9ecuti e and le$islati e powers, such that she could, if she so desired, amend, modify or repeal any part of -.P. -l$. 1&! or her own 29ecuti e )rder No. ++. %t should also be remembered that the same situation was still in force when she issued the 1!'3 appointments to the Court of Appeals. %n other words, President A8uino, at the time of the issuance of the 1!'3 appointments, modified or disre$arded the rule embodied in -.P. -l$. 1&! as amended by 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, on precedence or seniority in the case of the petitioner, for reasons #nown only to her. Since the appointment e9tended by the President to the petitioner in 1!'3 for membership in the new Court of Appeals with its implicit ran#in$ in the roster of <ustices, was a alid appointment anchored on the President>s e9ercise of her then re olutionary powers, it is not for the Court at this time to 8uestion or correct that e9ercise. ACC)R1%N(BG, the Court (RAN0S the 4otion for Reconsideration and the seniority ran#in$s of members of the Court of Appeals, includin$ that of the petitioner, at the time the appointments were made by the President in 1!'3, are reco$ni,ed and upheld. S) )R12R21. Paras, (ri6oEA8uino, Re$alado, 1a ide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

.=C2R2/)R2, %, Cora,on C. A8uino, President of the Philippines, by irtue of the powers ested in me by the so erei$n mandate of the people, do hereby promul$ate the followin$ Pro isional Constitution..&?cralaw@red 0hese summari,e the A8uino $o ernment>s position that its mandate is ta#en from .a direct e9ercise of the power of the /ilipino people.. &3 1iscussions and opinions of le$al e9perts also proclaim that the A8uino $o ernment was .re olutionary in the sense that it came into e9istence in defiance of the e9istin$ le$al processes. &* and that it was a re olutionary $o ernment .instituted by the direct action of the people and in opposition to the authoritarian alues and practices of the o erthrown $o ernment.. &' A 8uestion which naturally comes to mind is whether the then e9istin$ le$al order was o erthrown by the A8uino $o ernment. .A le$al order is the authoritati e code of a polity. Such code consists of all the rules found in the enactments of the or$ans of

Se&'%'#e O&1n1on) /2B%C%AN), J., concurrin$@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library % a$ree with the conclusion reached in the ma<ority opinion written by my learned brother, Padilla, J. %n particular, % a$ree that the Court of Appeals established by 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ is a new court, and was not merely the old %ntermediate Appellate Court with a new label. %f one e9amines the pro isions of -.P. -l$. 1&!, #nown as .0he Judiciary Reor$ani,ation Act of 1!'",. relatin$ to the old

%ntermediate Appellate Court, it is 8uite clear that the pre iously e9istin$ Court of Appeals was abolished and a new court, denominated the %ntermediate Appellate Court, was created. 0hus, Section + of -.P. -l$. 1&! reads as follows@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .Sec. +. )r$ani,ation. A 0here is hereby created an %ntermediate Appellate Court which shall consist of a Presidin$ Appellate Justice and fortyEnine Associate Appellate Justices who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. 0he Presidin$ Appellate Justice shall be so desi$nated in his appointment, and the Associate Appellate Justices shall ha e precedence accordin$ to the dates of their respecti e appointments, or when the appointments of two or more of them shall bear the same date, accordin$ to the order in which their appointments were issued by the President. Any member who is reappointed to the Court after renderin$ ser ice in any other position in the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his ser ice in Court shall, to all intents and purposes, be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.. :Emphasis supplied; Section 44 of the same statute pro ided as follows@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .Sec. 44. 0ransitory pro isions. A 0he pro isions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in accordance with an 29ecuti e )rder to be issued by the President. 0he Court of Appeals, the Courts of /irst %nstance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Ju enile and 1omestic Relations Courts, the Courts of A$rarian Relations, the City Courts, the 4unicipal Courts, and the 4unicipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and or$ani,ed, until the completion of the reor$ani,ation pro ided in this Act as declared by the President. 5pon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office. 0he cases pendin$ in the old Courts shall be transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act, to$ether with the pertinent function, records, e8uipment, property and the necessary personnel. x :Emphasis supplied; 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, promul$ated on &' July 1!'3, pro ided in part as follows@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .Section &. Section +, Chapter % of -atas Pambansa -l$. 1&!, is hereby amended to read as follows@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library HS2C. +. )r$ani,ation A 0here is hereby created a Court of Appeals which shall consist of a Presidin$ Justice and fifty Associate Justices who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. 0he Presidin$ Justice shall be so desi$nated in his appointment, and the Associate Justices shall ha e precedence accordin$ to the dates of their respecti e appointments, or when the appointments of two or more of them shall bear the same date, accordin$ to the order in which their appointments were issued by the President. Any member who is reappointed to the Court after renderin$ ser ice in any other position in the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his ser ice in the Court shall, for all intents and purposes, be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.>. :Emphasis supplied; Althou$h 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ spo#e of amendin$ Section +, Chapter 1 of -.P. -l$. 1&!, it will be seen that what really happened was the reEenactment of said Section +, Chapter 1 of -.P. -l$. 1&!. %n other words, much more happened than simply the renamin$ of the old %ntermediate Appellate Court into :once a$ain; Court of Appeals. %f all that 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ wanted to achie e was the relabelin$ of the old %ntermediate Appellate Court into the .Court of Appeals,. there was no need to amend or reEenact Section + of -.P. -l$. 1&!. /or Section ' of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ pro ided as follows@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .S2C0%)N '. 0he terms H%ntermediate Appellate Court, Presidin$ Appellate Justice and Associate Appellate Justice:s;> used in the Judiciary Reor$ani,ation Act of 1!'" or in any other law or e9ecuti e order shall hereafter mean Court of Appeals, Presidin$ Justice and Associate Justice:s;, respecti ely..cralaw irtua1aw library x x

0hus, President A8uino was 8uite free, le$ally spea#in$ to appoint to the new Court of Appeals whoe er in her <ud$ment was fit and proper for membership in that new court in an order of precedence that she was <ust then establishin$.chanrobles law library 0he sentence found in Section + of -.P. -l$. 1&! as amended or reEenacted throu$h the medium of Section & of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ A .Any 4ember who is reappointed to the Court after renderin$ ser ice in any other position in the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his ser ice in the Court shall, for all intents and purposes, be considered as continuous and uninterrupted..cralaw irtua1aw library which my distin$uished brother in the Court, (utierre,, Jr., J., ery hea ily stressed, contemplates in my submission the situation of a member of the new Court of Appeals acceptin$ appointment to some other department or branch of $o ernment, outside the Judiciary, and who later recei es an appointment once a$ain to that same Curt of Appeals. -ut 4r. Justice Reynato S. Puno was not in such a situation. 0he last precedin$ appointment to the Judiciary of 4r. Justice Reynato S. Puno was to the then %ntermediate Appellate Court newly created by -.P. -l$. 1&!. %n 1!'4, he left that court to become 1eputy 4inister in the 4inistry of Justice. Cis ne9t appointment to the Judiciary was not to the old %ntermediate Appellate Court, which by that time had passed on to history. Cis appointment dated &' July 1!'3, was, in my iew, as already noted, to the new Court of Appeals established by 29ecuti e )rder No. ++. 0hus, the last sentence of Section + of -.P. -l$. 1&! :before reEenactment by 29ecuti e )rder No. ++; afforded no basis for a claim to the same numerical precedence in the new Court of Appeals that he would ha e been entitled to had the old %ntermediate Appellate Court not $one out of e9istence. %t is difficult for me to understand how a claim to a particular position in an order of precedence can be made where the court itself, to which the new appointment is made, is a new and distinct court. % ote to $rant the 4otion for Reconsideration. -2BB)S%BB), J., concurrin$@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library % a$ree with the ponencia of 4r. Justice Padilla, so % ote to $rant the motion for reconsideration of )ur Resolution of No ember &!, 1!!". % am for respectin$ the seniority ran#in$ of the Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals at the time they were appointed by the President on July +1, 1!'3. % must admit that, li#e 4r. Justice (utierre,, Jr., and 4r. Justice Padilla, it was not easy for me to decide to participate in the deliberations in this case considerin$ that it in ol es esteemed collea$ues in the Court of Appeals. As such, when sub<ect Resolution was promul$ated, % did not react despite the proddin$s of wellEmeanin$ friends. %t refused to be dra$$ed into the .fray. in deference to Justice Reynato S. Puno who would be ad ersely affected. % remained firm in my resol e to stay away from the contro ersy. %t was to me a personal pri ile$e so to do, which i could wai e, as % did. -ut circumstances ha e chan$edD not that % no lon$er re ere my friendship with Justice Puno, but as a member now of this Court it has become my duty A no lon$er a mere pri ile$e, much less a ri$ht A to aid the Court in resol in$ this contro ersy in the fairest possible way, a responsibility % find no <ustification to shir#. )n Au$ust 1, 1!'3, at the oathEta#in$ ceremonies for the newlyEappointed members of the Court of Appeals at 4alaca6an$, when % noticed Justice Puno ta#e a seat on my ri$ht, 1 % as#ed him to transfer to the left where our senior <ustices were assi$ned. % was assumin$ that he should be on the left because he was appointed to the old Appellate Court ahead of me. -ut he showed me the list where he appeared as No. &3, Justice Bisin$, No. &?, and % was No. &4. Since he appeared perturbed with his new ran#, % su$$ested to him to see# the help of then Justice Secretary Neptali A. (on,ales, Chairman of the Screenin$ Committee that processed the appointments of the new members of the Court of Appeals, and who was then <ust a meter and a half in front of us. -ut after tal#in$ to Secretary (on,ales, Justice Puno returned to his ori$inal assi$ned seat. =hen % as#ed him what happened, he simply shru$$ed his shoulders. )b iously, he failed in his bid. =e then too# our oath in the order we were ran#ed in the list. Some two :&; months or so later, in an 2n -anc session bac# in the Court of Appeals, as we were seated side by side with

Justice Puno, & % in8uired a$ain from him as to what happened to his re8uest with 4alaca6an$ con eyed throu$h the Presidin$ Justice for the correction of his ran#in$. Justice Puno told me it was not $ranted. 0he letter of then Presidin$ Justice 2milio A. (ancayco dated Au$ust *, 1!'3, which was his second in fact on the sub<ect, addressed to 29ecuti e Secretary Jo#er P. Arroyo, is enli$htenin$ and informati e A .1ear Sir@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library %n relation to my letter of Au$ust ?, 1!'3 informin$ you of the possible o erEsi$ht in the ran#in$ of 4r. Justice R2GNA0) S. P5N) in his reappointment as member of this Court, % am furnishin$ you a certification of the Cler# of Court to the same effect, and also in relation to the ran#in$ of 4essrs. Rodolfo A. Nocon and Jor$e A. Co8uia who in accordance with their ori$inal appointment to this Court are more senior than 4r. Justice )scar R. 7ictoriano in the said order. %f Cer 29cellency President Cora,on A8uino should decide to rearran$e the ran#in$ of the incumbent <ustices of this Court in accordance with the pro isions of Section &, 29ecuti e )rder I ++ their proper ran#in$ should be as follows@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library No. + A 4r. Justice Rodolfo A. NoconD No. 4 A 4r. Justice Jor$e A. Co8uiaD No. ? A 4r. Justice )scar R. 7ictorianoD and No. 11 A 4r. Justice Reynato S. Puno..cralaw irtua1aw library =hile this letter perhaps did not elicit the desired response from 29ecuti e Secretary Arroyo as his answer did not s8uarely settle the issue, the messa$e is clear, i.e., 4alaca6an$ did not $rant the re8uest for correction of what was percei ed to be a .possible o ersi$ht., e en after it was twice brou$ht to its attention. Cere % am reminded of the principle in procedure that a motion that is not $ranted, especially after an unreasonable len$th of time, is deemed denied, and the lapse of more than four :4; years before Justice Puno finally came to 5s + is reasonably unreasonable. 0he letterEappointment of President Cora,on C. A8uino addressed to then Chief Justice Claudio 0eehan#ee dated July +1, 1!'3, in fact cate$orically specifies the order of seniority of her appointees, thus A .1ear 4r. Chief Justice. % ha e appointed the Presidin$ Justice and the Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals under the followin$ order of seniority@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library 1. Con. 2milio A. (ancayco, Presidin$ Justice . . . +. Con. )scar R. 7ictoriano, Associate Justice 4. Con. Rodolfo A. Nocon, Associate Justice ?. Con. Jor$e A. Co8uia, Associate Justice . . . 1&. Con. Jose C. Campos, Jr., Associate Justice . . . 13. Con. Buis A. Ja ellana, Associate Justice . . . &3. Con. Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justice . . ..cralaw irtua1aw library 9 9 9.

Considerin$ the circumstances herein narrated, % find it difficult to yield to the proposition that an error was committed throu$h inad ertence by 4alaca6an$ in the ran#in$ of the <ustices appointed to the Court of Appeals on July +1, 1!'3. 0he abo eE8uoted letter of President A8uino also brin$s to focus the ran#in$ of Justice )scar R. 7ictoriano who was <unior to Justices Nocon and Co8uia in the old Court, as reflected in the letter of Presidin$ Justice (ancayco. Cowe er, in the letter of the President, Justice 7ictoriano was ran#ed No. +, while Justices Nocon and Co8uia were ran#ed No. 4 and No. ?, respecti ely. Cence, it is not accurate to say that Justice 7ictoriano was reinstated to his former ran# in the old Court, but was e en $i en a ran# hi$her than Justices Nocon and Co8uia. 0his .possible o ersi$ht. was also brou$ht to the attention of 4alaca6an$ but, li#e the case of Justice Puno, no correction was made.chanrobles irtual lawlibrary All these clearly support the iew of 4r. Justice Padilla in his ponencia, as well as of 4r. Justice /eliciano in his concurrin$ opinion, that the present Court of Appeals is an entirely different court, distinct from the old %ntermediate Appellate Court or the former Court of Appeals, with a new members althou$h some were drawn from the now defunct %ntermediate Appellate Court, and that the .error. referred to by Justice Puno could not ha e been only throu$h .inad ertence. but deliberate, otherwise, 4alaca6an$ could ha e readily effected the correctionJ -ut whether the .error. was deliberate or committed throu$h inad ertence, is )ur Court the proper enue for the correctionJ Can =e now correct this alle$ed error of the appointin$ authorityJ =orse, can =e direct the )ffice of the President to do what is e9clusi ely within its prero$ati eJ 0his brin$s me to the final point which bothers me still further. %f =e sustain the claim that the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the old %ntermediate Appellate Court, or of the old Court of Appeals, then =e may be swarmed with re8uests not only for reEran#in$ but also for reinstatement of those who were not reappointed on July +1, 1!'3, but a$ainst whom no char$es ha e been filed. /or then, should they not be allowed to en<oy their security of tenure as ci il ser ants under the ConstitutionJ %n the case of Justice Jor$e S. %mperial, he was a member of the old %ntermediate Appellate Court who was not reappointed to the new Court of Appeals on July +1, 1!'3. 0here was no char$e a$ainst him. Ce was later reappointed but only on January &, 1!'*. Should =e also order that he be reinstated to his former ran# in the %ntermediate Appellate CourtJ 0hen, =e may ha e to dislod$e some of the present di ision Chairmen of the Court of Appeals to accommodate him. 0hat would be unsettlin$, disturbin$, and disrupti e of the present system. % do not thin# =e wish this to happen. (50%2RR2K, JR., J., dissentin$@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library % re$ret that % ha e to differ from the position ta#en by 4r. Justice Padilla re$ardin$ the seniority ran#in$ of Justice Reynato S. Puno in the Court of Appeals. % a$ree that the resolution of the contro ersy is not a pleasant one for us since it in ol es persons who are close to the members of this Court. /or me, the tas# is particularly difficult because apart from close personal relationship, % also hi$hly respect the parties> considerable talents, abilities and 8ualifications. % ha e #nown Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. since my student days and as a <unior member of this Court, % once ur$ed his nomination for appointment to the Supreme Court e en before he started to ser e in the Court of Appeals. Justice Buis A. Ja ellana was my collea$ue in the Social Security System while Justice Reynato S. Puno and % wor#ed to$ether in the )ffice of the Solicitor (eneral. % belie e, howe er, that we can resol e the issues on the basis of the facts and the applicable law, in the same way that we re erse or affirm the parties> respecti e ponencias disre$ardin$ personal feelin$s or close association. 0he applicable pro ision of law in this case was introduced into the Judiciary Act of 1!4' by Rep. Act No. ?&"4 on June 1?, 1!3' when it amended the first para$raph of Section &4 to read@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library x x x

Not only the law but also the facts support the correctness of our No ember &!, 1!!" resolution.chanrobles law library @ red .Pro ided, howe er, that any member of the Court of Appeals who has been reappointed to that court after renderin$ ser ice in any other branch of the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he is entitled under his ori$inal appointment and his ser ice in court shall, to all intents and purposes, be considered as continuous and uninterrupted . . ..cralaw irtua1aw library 0his pro ision was reiterated in all subse8uent repealin$ or amendatory acts and continues to the present. %t is found in -atas Pambansa -l$. 1&!, Section + and in 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ under President Cora,on C. A8uino reor$ani,ed the Court of Appeals. % respectfully submit that from 1!3' to 1!!&, there was no sin$le moment when this pro ision ceased to e9ist. %t was ne er repealed and ne er disappeared from the law. 2 erybody, includin$ the appointin$ power is, of course, bound by the law. % a$ree with Justice Padilla>s discussion of President A8uino>s powers in a re olutionary $o ernment, a $o ernment re olutionary in the sense that it came into e9istence in defiance of the e9istin$ le$al processes. %, howe er, belie e that the appointments of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in 1!'3 were not a personal act of a re olutionary President. /ar from it. /irst, President A8uino>s $o ernment ceased to be re olutionary on 4arch &?, 1!'3 when she promul$ated Proclamation No. +, which she called the /reedom Constitution. Cer $o ernment became a constitutional one bound by the /reedom Constitution and the e9ecuti e orders issued under its authority. Second, one si$nificant pro ision of the /reedom Constitution states that .all electi e and appointi e officials and employees under the 1!*+ Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise pro ided by proclamation or e9ecuti e order or upon the desi$nation or appointment and 8ualification of their successors, if such appointment is made within a period of one year from /ebruary &3, 1!'3.. :Section &, Article %%%, Emphasis supplied;. 0hird, the President implemented the abo e pro ision of the Constitution on July &', 1!'3 when she issued 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ which amended -.P. 1&!. As earlier stated, 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ reiterated erbatim the pro ision of -.P. No. 1&! which pro ided for retention of precedence of a member who is reappointed after a stin$ in another position in the $o ernment. President A8uino was bound by the pro isions of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ because it is a law enacted pursuant to constitutional authority. She could no lon$er act as a re olutionary President because there was a Constitution, and there were statutes under that Constitution, in e9istence. 4ore important, 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ was enacted precisely to pro ide for the reor$ani,ation of the %ntermediate Appellate Court into the Court of Appeals. 0he President intended that e ery pro ision of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ should be followed precisely for the purpose for which it was enacted, namely, reor$ani,ation of the appellate court. % cannot understand the reasonin$ which says that all pro isions of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ must apply in the reor$ani,ation of the Court of Appeals e9cept the pro ision on retention of seniority by a reappointed member which must be for the future only. 2 en assumin$ that this one sentence of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ was intended to be prospecti e, then the President has to follow -.P. No. 1&! because Proclamation No. +, Article %7 pro ides@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .S2C0%)N 1. All e9istin$ laws, decrees, e9ecuti e orders, proclamations, letters of instruction, implementin$ rules and re$ulations, and other e9ecuti e issuances not inconsistent with this Proclamation shall remain operati e until amended, modified, or repealed by the President or the re$ular le$islati e body to be established under a New Constitution..cralaw irtua1aw library /or us lawyers, there is one si$nal feature of President A8uino>s si9 years in the presidency and this is her dedicated personal obser ance of the rule of law. 2 en when some of our decisions nullified her fa orite pro<ects, she unhesitatin$ly ordered compliance with our interpretation of the law. % cannot belie e that the President would #nowin$ly iolate one pro ision of a law she promul$ated e en as she complied with e er other pro ision of that same law. =e stated in our resolution@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph ./ollowin$ this specific pro ision on seniority, the Screenin$ Committee recommended the return and reappointment of Justice Puno as Associate Justice of the New Court of Appeals. Ce was assi$ned the seniority ran# of number ele en :11; followin$ Associate Justice 7icente 7. 4endo,a who was $i en the seniority ran# of number ten :1";. 5nfortunately, howe er, due to a mista#e which can only be inad ertent, the seniority ran# of Justice Puno appears to ha e been chan$ed from number ele en :11; to number twenty si9 :&3;, after the appointments in the new Court of Appeals were si$ned by President A8uino. 0hrou$h his letter, Justice Puno prays for the correction of his seniority ran#in$ alle$in$ that he should now be $i en the seniority ran# of number fi e :?; instead of number twel e :1&; in the Court of Appeals. =e find the petition for correction of ran#in$ by Justice Puno to be meritorious. 0he mista#e in the ran#in$ of Justice Puno from number ele en :11; to number twenty si9 :&3; in the 1!'3 <udicial reor$ani,ation has to be corrected, otherwise, there will be a iolation of the clear mandate of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ that Hany member who is reappointed to the Court after renderin$ ser ice in any other position in the $o ernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his ser ice in the court shall, for all intents and purposes be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.> %n fine, the e9ecuti e ser ice of Justice Puno as 1eputy 4inister of Justice should not ad ersely affect the continuity of his ser ice in the <udiciary upon his return and appointment thereto on July &',1 !'3. )therwise, the salutary purpose of 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ which is to attract competent members of the <udiciary to ser e in other branches of the $o ernment without fear of losin$ their seniority status in the <udiciary in the e ent of their return thereto would be defeated . . .. :Res. dtd. 11E&!E!", pp. &E+; Nobody disputes the fact that the Screenin$ Committee headed by the then Secretary of Justice Neptali (on,ales and a member of which was our own Justice Beo 1. 4edialdea ran#ed Justice Reynato S. Puno as No. 11 in their recommendation. =hen the appointments came out, 4r. Puno was No. &3. 0his, of course, iolates not only 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ but also the laws on the same sub<ect which preceded it. 0hat the President ne er intended to iolate a #ey pro ision of law is shown in the September 1*, 1!'3 letter of 29ecuti e Secretary Jo#er P. Arroyo, appended to the Reply submitted by Justices Campos and Ja ellana. 0he e9planation reads@<$c@chanrobles.com.ph .1* September 1!'3 Con. 2milio A. (ancayco Presidin$ Justice Court of Appeals 4anila. Sir@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library %n reply to your enclosed letter of Au$ust *, 1!'3, please be informed that the President had nothin$ to do with the order of seniority. 0he list and order of seniority was submitted by a screenin$ committee and passed on to the Supreme Court for re iew. 7ery truly yours, :S(1.; J)F2R P. ARR)G)

29ecuti e Secretary. =hen Secretary Arroyo states that the President had nothin$ to do with the order or se8uence of seniority, it means that she <ust followed the recommendations of her own Screenin$ Committee, which recommendations had already been re iewed by the Supreme Court. She did not select any recommendees her own. She ne er de iated from the recommendations because e erybody recommended was appointed. 0he chan$e from No. 11 to No. &3 could not ha e been a deliberate act of the President as she had nothin$ to do with the order of seniority of the Justices she was appointin$. 0he chan$e could only ha e been an inad ertence because it was iolati e not only of the law but also of the recommendations of her Screenin$ Committee. 0here are other matters raised in the letter and reply of Justices Campos and Ja ellana which ha e been answered by Justice Puno in his Comment. % find no need to comment on them at this time. % re$ret if my answer to the 8uery of Justice Campos led him to be lulled into inaction. Justice Campos called me up o er the telephone in8uirin$ about the petition of Justice Puno before % was aware that there was such a petition. % try to read all petitions filed with the court en banc but % do so only after they are placed in the a$enda and are in the ne9t order of business of a particular session. 4y staff ne er places a copy of any petition on my des# until it is entered in the a$enda. %t is unfortunate that Justices Campos, Camilon, dela /uente, Ja ellana, Purisima, de Pano, and -ellosillo were not furnished copies of the letterEpetition of Justice Puno but this is for then Chief Justice 4arcelo -. /ernan and Cler# of Court Atty. 1aniel 0. 4artine, to e9plain. Justices Campos and Ja ellana state that .Justice Puno is ?" years old and to put him in No. ? will destroy the chances of those displaced by him who are older than he to aspire for promotion..cralaw irtua1aw library 0he fears of the $ood Justices are unfounded. 29cept for the Presidin$ Justice, a $reater number of .<unior. Justices ha e been appointed in the past ten years to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, than the most senior Justices of that Court. %n other words, there has been more by passin$ of senior members than adherence to the seniority listin$. %n fact, the latest nominations of the Judicial and -ar Council for position to which Justice -ellosillo was appointed, included Justice Campos and e9cluded Justices Fapunan and Puno. % understand that in the past few acancies in this court, Justice Campos has been nominated more often than Justice Puno.chanrobles irtualawlibrary chanrobles.com@chanrobles.com.ph )ur resolution dated No ember &!, 1!!" correctin$ the seniority ran#in$ of Justice Puno was a unanimous decision of this Court e9cept for 4r. Justice Padilla were discussed and fully deliberated upon. Since our resolution is based on both the facts and the law, % see no reason why we should modify or set it aside. %, therefore, ote to reiterate the Court>s resolution dated No ember &!, 1!!". Nar asa, C.J., -idin, 4edialdea and Nocon, JJ., concur. CR5K, J., dissentin$@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library % <oin 4r. Justice (utierre, in his dissent, with these brief additional remar#s. Sec. + of -P 1&! laid down the ori$inal precedence rule applicable to members of the %ntermediate Appellate Court. 0his was embodied in Sec. & of 2) ++ without chan$e e9cept as to the name of the court. 0he first pro ision was not repealed. As 4r. Justice /eliciano points out, it was merely .reEenacted..cralaw irtua1aw library % do not thin# the reEenacted rule was intended to operate prospecti ely only. % belie e it continues to be a ailable to the former members of the %ntermediate Appellate Court no less than to the members of the Court of Appeals. %t is a wellE#nown canon of construction that apparently conflictin$ pro isions should be harmoni,ed whene er possible. 0he ponencia would instead re o#e Sec. +. of -P 1&! e en thou$h Sec. & of 2) ++ has not repealed but in fact reEenacted it. % would reconcile the two pro isions and $i e effect to both.

Si$nificantly, Sec. ' of 2) ++ pro ides that .the term %ntermediate Appellate Court . . . shall hereafter mean Court of Appeals..cralaw irtua1aw library Nar asa, C.J., concurs. Endnotes:

1. Rollo, p. 1". &. -.P. -l$. 1&! was passed by the -atasan$ Pambansa on 1" Au$ust 1!'1 and si$ned into law by President /erdinand 2. 4arcos on 14 Au$ust 1!'1. +. Rollo, p. 4. 4. 29ecuti e )rder No. ++ was issued on &' July 1!'3 by President Cora,on C. A8uino. ?. Rollo, p. &. 3. Rollo, pp. ?, ?EA. *. %bid., p. ?EA. '. %bid. !. Rollo, pp. 1E+. 1". %bid., p. +. 11. %bid., p. 1'. 1&. Rollo, pp. &'E&!. Remar#s of President Cora,on C. A8uino at a media briefin$ announcin$ the promul$ation of a transition Constitution :otherwise #nown as the /reedom Constitution; at the /reedom Call, 4alaca6an$, 4arch &?, 1!'3. 1+. Rollo, pp. &3E&*. See also Alcantara, Statutes, 1!!" ed., p. 134 citin$ Crawford@ Statutory Construction and A$palo, Statutory Construction, 1!!" ed., p. +"4 citin$ American -ible Society . City of 4anila, 1"1 Phil. +'3. 14. Rollo, p. 41. 1?. %bid., p. 4&. 13. Rollo, pp. 4*E?". 1*. Cuerdo . Commission on Audit, 133 SCRA 3?* citin$ 0a$um 1octors 2nterprises . (re$orio Apsay, 2t Al., (.R. No. '11'', Au$ust +", 1!''. 1'. Rollo, p. 4!. 1!. Fitlow . Fiely, 44 /. 2d. &&*, &+&. &". State . 1iamond, &"& P. !'', !!1. &1. Felsen, (eneral 0heory of Baw and State :1!43;, p. 11*.

&&. C. -lac#, Candboo# of American Constitutional Baw %%, 4th edition, 1!&*. &+. Political Ri$hts as Political Luestions. 0he Parado9 of Buther . -orden, 1"" Car ard Baw Re iew 11&?, 11++ :1!'*;. &4. Proclamation No. + :1!'3;. &?. %bid. &3. Proclamation No. 1 :1!'3; and Proclamation No. + :1!'3;. &*. J. -ernas, Proclamation No. + with Notes by Joa8uin -ernas, S.J. + :1!'3;. &'. Address by 5.P. President, now Senator 2d$ardo An$ara, -ishopsE-usinessmen>s Conference, 4arch &1, 1!'3, &* 5.P. (a,ette &', &!. &!. /ernande,, Baw and Polity@ 0owards a Systems Concept of Be$al 7alidity, 43 Phil. Baw Journal, +!"E+!1 :1!*1;. +". %d., at 4&&. +1. /ernande,, supra note &!. +&. 1!*+ Constitution, Art. 7%%, Sec. ?. -2BB)S%BB), J., concurrin$@chanrob1es irtual 1aw library 1. As prearran$ed by the Protocol )fficer, the newlyEappointed Justices were assi$ned seats accordin$ to seniority from left to ri$ht, so that when called to ta#e their oath they would only ha e to rise, mo e forward, turn around, and face the President, as well as their families and friends, for their oathEta#in$ so that seniority ran#in$ would automatically be obser ed in re erse, from ri$ht o left. &. %n 2n -anc sessions, e en numbers are assi$ned consecuti ely on one side and odd numbers on the other side, and Justice Puno and myself were ran#ed No. &3 and &4, respecti ely. +. 0he letterEre8uest of Justice Puno to this Court is dated No ember 14, 1!!", while the reply of 29ecuti e Secretary Jo#er P. Arroyo which did not $rant the re8uest, is dated September 1*, 1!'3.

of Pres. A8uino. 0he court en banc ranted Justice PunoMs re8uest. A motion for consideration was later filed by Campos and Ja elliano who were affected by the chan$e of ran#in$. 0hey contend that the petitioner cannot claim such reappointment because the court he had pre iously been appointed ceased to e9ist at the date of his last appointment. %ssue@ =hether the present CA is a new court or merely a continuation of the CA and %AC that would ne$ate any claim to seniority en<oyed by the petitioner e9istin$ prior to said 2) No. ++. Celd@ 0he present CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or the %AC, for it was created in the wa#e of the massi e reor$ani,ation launched by the re olutionary $o ernment of Cora,on A8uino in the people power. A re olution has been defined as the complete o erthrow of the established $o ernment in any country or state by those who were pre iously sub<ect to it as as sudden, radical, and fundamental chan$e in the $o ernment or political system, usually effected with iolence. A $o ernment as a result of peopleMs re olution is considered de <ure if it is already accepted by the family of nations or countries li#e the 5S, (reat -ritain, (ermany, Japan, and others. %n the new $o ernment under Pres. A8uino, it was installed throu$h direct e9ercise of the /ilipino power. 0herefore, it is the present CA that would ne$ate the claims of Justice Puno concernin$ his seniority ran#in$.

%n Re Better of Associate Justice Reynato Puno /acts@ Petitioner Assoc. Justice Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals :CA;, wrote a letter dated No . 14, 1!!" addressed to the Supreme Court about the correction of his seniority ran#in$ in the CA. %t appears from the records that petitioner was first appointed as associate <ustice of the CA on June &", 1!'" but too# his oath of office on No . &!, 1!'&. 0he CA was reor$ani,ed and became the %ntermediate Appellate Court :%AC; pursuant to -atas Pambansa -l$. 1&!, .An Act Reor$ani,in$ the Judiciary Appropriatin$ /unds 0herefor and /or )ther Purposes.. Ce was then appointed as appellate <ustice and later accepted an appointment to be a deputy minister of Justice in the 4inistry of Justice. %n 2dsa Re olution in /eb. 1!'3 brou$ht about reor$ani,ation of the entire $o ernment includin$ the <udiciary. A Screenin$ Committee was created. =hen Pres. Cory A8uino issued 29ecuti e )rder No. ++, as an e9ercise of her le$islati e power, the Screenin$ Committee assi$ned the petitioner to ran# no. 11 from bein$ the assoc. <ustice of the N2= CA. Cowe er, the petitionerMs ran#in$ chan$ed from no. 11, he now ran#ed as no. &3. Ce alle$es that the chan$e in his seniority ran#in$ would be contrary to the pro isions of issued order