In Re Appointments of Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon.

Placido Vallarta
AM No. 98-5-01-SC | November 9, 1998

FACTS:

On March 30,U 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
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."

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 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.