Letter of Associate Justice Puno
Content
EN BANC [A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA. June 29, 1992.] LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RENATO S. !UNO o" #$e Cou%# o" A&&e'() *'#e* 1+ Noee% 1990.
RESOLUTION
!A/ILLA, J.
Petitionerr Associate Justice Reyna Petitione Reynato to S. Puno, a member of the Court of Appeals, wrote a letter dated 14 Noember 1!!" addressed to this Court, see#in$ the correction correction of his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals. %t appears from the records that petitioner was &rst appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on '" June 1!(" but too# too# his oath of o)c o)ce e for said position o only nly on '! Noember 1!(', after serin$ as Assistant Solicitor *eneral in the +)ce of the Solicitor *eneral since 1!4. 1 +n 1 January 1!(-, the Court of Appeals was reor$ reor$anied anied and became the %ntermediate Appellate Court pursuant to /atas Pambansa /l$. 1'! entitled 0An Act Reor Reor$aniin$ $aniin$ the Judiciary. Appropriatin$ unds 2herefor and or +ther Purposes.0 Purposes .0 ' Petitioner Petitioner was appointed Appellate Justice in the irst Special Cases 3iision of the %ntermediat %ntermediate e Appellate Court. +n Noember 1!(4, petitioner accepted an appointment to be ceased to be a member of the Judiciary.. Judiciary
respectie appointments, appointments, or when the appointments of two or more shall bear the same date, accordin$ to the order in which their appointments were issued by the President. Presiden t. Any 7ember who is reappointe reappointed d to the Court after renderin$ serice in any other position in the $oernment shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his ori$inal appointment, and his serice in the Court shall, for all intents and purpose be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.0 5 Petitioner elaborates that President A;uino is presumed to hae intended to comply with wi th her own <ecutie +rder No. -- so much so that the correction of the inadertent error would only implement the intent of the President as well as the spirit of <ecutie +rder No. -- and wil willl not proo#e any #ind of constitutional confrontation =between the Presidentt and the Supreme Court>. Presiden Petitioner points to the case of Justice +scar :ictoriano, former Presidin$ Justice of the Court of Appeals who, accordin$ to petitioner, was transferr transferred ed from his position as Justice of the Court of Appeals to the 7inistry of Justice as Commissioner of Eand Re$istration and in 1!(5 was reappointed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner states that his =:ictorianos> stint in the Commission of Eand Re$istration Re$istra tion did not adersely a6ect his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals, for, in his hi s case, <ecutie +rder No. -- was correctly applied. ( %n a resolution of the Court en banc dated '! Noember 1!!", the Court $ranted Justice Punos re;uest. re;uest. ! %t will be noted before the issuance said resolution, there was nothat written opposition to, orof comment on petitioners aforesaid re;uest. re;uest. 2he dispositie portion of the resolution reads?$cchanrobles.com.ph
2he aftermath aftermath of the 3SA R Reolution eolution in ebruary ebruary 1!(5 brou$ht about a reor$aniation of the entire $oernment, includin$ the Judiciary. 2o e6ect the reor$aniation of the %ntermediate %ntermediat e Appellate Court and other lower courts, a Screenin$ Committee was created, with the then 7inister of Justice, now Senator Neptali *onales as Chairman and then Solicitor *eneral, now Philippine Ambassador to the 8nited Nations Sedfrey +rdo9e as :ice Chairman. President Preside nt Coraon C. A;uino, e<er e<ercisin$ cisin$ le$islatie powers by irtue of the reolution, issued <ecutie +rder No. -to $oern the aforementioned reor$aniation of the Judiciary.. 4 Judiciary
0%N :%@ @FR+, the petition of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno for correctio Reynato correction n of his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals is $ranted. 2he presidin$ Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Fonorable Rodo Rodolfo lfo A. Nocon, is hereby directed to correct correct the seniority ran# of Justice Puno from number twele =1'> to number &e =B>. Eet copies of this Resolution be furnished the Court Administrator and the Judicial and /ar Council for their $uidance and information.0 1"
2he Screenin$ Committee Committee reco recommended mmended re return turn of petitioner as Associate Justice of the new the Court of Appeals and assi$ned him the ran# of number eleen =11> in the roster of appellate court ?ustices. @hen the appointments were si$ned by President A;uino on '( July 1!(5, petitioners seniority ran#in$ chan$ed, howeer, from number eleen =11> to number twenty si< ='5>. B
two ='> of the Associate Justices a6ected by the ordered correction. correc tion. 2hey contend that the present Court of Appeals is a new Court with &fty one =B1> members and that petitioner could not claim a reappointme reappointment nt to a prior courtG neither can he claim that he was returnin$ to his former court, for the courts where he had preiously been appointed ceased to e<ist at the date of his last appointment. 11
Petitionerr now alle$es that the chan$e in his seniority Petitione ran#in$ could only be attributed to inadertence for, otherwise, it would run counter to the proisions of Section ' of <ecutie +rder No. --, which readschanroble readschanrobles s irtual lawlibrary 0SC2%+N '. Section -, Chapter 1 of /atas Pambansa /l$. 1'!, is hereby amended to read as follows?$cchanrobles.com.ph 0SC. '. +r$aniation. D 2here is hereby created created a Court of Appeals which shall consist of a Presidin$ Justice and &fty Associate Justices who shall be appointed by the President Preside nt of the Philippines. 2he Presidin$ Justice shall be so desi$nated in his appointment and the Associate Justice shall hae precedence accordin$ to the dates of their
A motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court en banc dated '! Noember 1!!" was later &led by Associate Justices Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Euis A. Jaellana,
2he Court en banc in a resolution dated 1 Januar January y 1!!' re;uired the petitioner to &le his comment on the motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated '! Noember 1!!". %n his Comment, petitioner ar$ues that, by irtue of <ecutie +rder No. -- read in relation to /.P. /l$. 1'!, his seniority ran#in$ in the Court of Appeals is now number &e =B> for, thou$h President President A;uino rose to power by irtue of a reolution, she had pled$ed at the issuance of Proclamation No. - =otherwise #nown as the reedom Constitution> that 0no ri$ht proided under the unrati&ed 1!- Constitution =shall> be absent in the re reedom edom Constitution.0 1'
7oreoer, since the last sentence of Section ' of 7oreoer, <ecutie +rder No. -- irtually reHenacted the last sentence of Sec. -, Chapter 1 of /.P. /l$. 1'!, statutory construction rules on simultaneous repeal and reH enactment mandate, accordin$ to petitioner, the preseration preserat ion and enforcement of all ri$hts and liabilities which had accrued under the ori$inal statute. 1urthermore, urth ermore, petitioner aers that, althou$h the power of appointment is e<ecutie in character and cannot be usurped by any other branch of the *oernment, such power can still be re$ulated by the Constitution and by the appropriate law, in this case, by the limits set by <ecutie +rder N+. -- 14 for the power of appointment cannot be wielded in iolation of law law.. 1B Justices Jaellana and Campos wer were e re;uired by the Court to &le their reply to Justice Punos comment on their motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Court en banc dated '4 January 1!!1.chanrobles.co 1!!1.chanrobles.comcralawr mcralawred ed %n their Reply and Supplemental Reply, Associate Justices Jaellana and Campos Campos submit that the appeal or re re;uest ;uest for correction &led by the petitioner was addressed to the wron$ party. 2hey aer that as petitioner himself had alle$ed the mista#e to be an 0inadertent error0 of the +)ce of the President, er$o, he should hae &led his re;uest for correction also with said +)ce of the President and not directly with w ith the Supreme Court. 15 urthermore urthermore,, they point out that petitioner had indeed &led with the +)ce of the President a re;uest or petition for correction of histhat ran#in$, =seniority> but the same approed such his recourse should hae beenwas an not appropriate action before the proper court and impleadin$ all parties concerned. concerne d. 2he aforesaid nonHapp nonHapproal roal by the +)ce of the President Preside nt they ar$ue, should be respecte respected d by the Supreme Court 0not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also their presumed #nowled$e ability and een e<pertise in the laws l aws they are entrusted to enforce0 1 for it =the nonHapproa nonHapproal> l> is a con&rmation that petitioners seniority ran#in$ at the time of his appointment by President A;uino was, in fact, deliberate and not an 0inadertent error0 as petitioner would hae the Court beliee. 1( 2he resolution of this contr controersy oersy is not a pleas pleasant ant tas# for the Court since it inoles not only members of the ne<t hi$hest court of the land but persons who are close to members of this Court. /ut the controersy has to be resoled. 2he core issue in this case is whether the present Court of Appeals is a new court such that it would ne$ate any claim to precedence precedence or seniority admittedly en?oyed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals and %ntermediate %ntermediat e Appellate Court e<istin$ prior to <ecutie +rder No. -- or whether the present Court of Appeals is merely a continuation of the Court of Appeals and %ntermediate %ntermediat e Appellate Court e<istin$ prior to said <ecutie +rder No. --. %t is the holdin$ of the Court that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity, di6erent and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the %ntermediat %ntermediate e Appellate Court e<istin$ prior to <ecutie +rder No. --, for it was created in the wa#e of the massie reor$aniation launched by the reolutionary $oernment $oernment of Coraon C. A;uino in the aftermath after math of the people power =3SA> reolution in 1!(5. A resolution has been de&ned as 0the complete oerthrow of the established $oernment in any country or state by those who were preiously sub?ect to it0 1! or as 0a sudden, radical and fundamental chan$e in the $oernment or political system, usually e6ected with
iolence or at least some acts of iolence.0 '" %n Ielsens boo#, *eneral 2heory of Eaw and State, it is de&ned as that which 0occurs wheneer the le$al order of a community is nulli&ed and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by the &rst order itself.0 '1 %t was throu$h the ebruary 1!(5 reolution, a relatiely peaceful one, and more popularly #nown as the 0people power reolution0 that the ilipino people tore themseles away from an e<istin$ re$ime. 2his reolution also saw the unprecedented unpreceden ted rise to power of the A;uino $oernment. r rom om the natural law point of iew, the ri$ht of reolution has been de&ned as 0an inherent ri$ht of a people to cast out their rulers, chan$e their policy or e6ect radical reforms in their system of $oernment or institutions by force or a $eneral uprisin$ when the le$al and constitutional methods of ma#in$ such chan$e hae proed inade;uate or are so obstructed as to be unaailable.0 '' %t has been said that 0the locus of positie lawHma#in$ power lies with the people of the state0 and from there is deried 0the ri$ht of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any e<istin$ form of $oernment without re$ard to the e<istin$ constitution.0 ' 2he three =-> clauses clauses that pr precede ecede the te te<t <t of the Proisional =reedom> Constitution, '4 read?$cchanrobles.com.ph 0@FRAS, the new $oernment under President Coraon C. A;uino was installed throu$h a direct e<er e<ercise cise of the power thesilipino people assisted by units of the New Armed of orce orces of the PhilippinesG 0@FRAS, the heroic action of the people was done in de&ance of the proisions of the 1!- Constitution, as amendedG 0@FR+R, %, Coraon C. A;uino, President of the Philippines, by irtue of the powers ested in me by the soerei$n mandate of the people, do hereby promul$ate the followin$ Proisiona Proisionall Constitution.0'B Constitution.0'Bcralawr cralawred ed 2hese summarie the A;uino A;uino $oernme $oernments nts position that its mandate is ta#en from 0a direct e<ercise of the power of the ilipino people.0 '5 3iscussions and opinions of le$al e<perts also proclaim that the A;uino $oernment was 0reolutionary in the sense that it came into e<istence in de&ance of the e<istin$ le$al processes0 processes0 ' and that it was a reolutionary $oernment $oernment 0instituted by the direct action of the people and in opposition to the authoritarian alues and practices of the oerthrown $oernment.0 '( A ;uestion which naturally comes to mind is whether w hether the then e<istin$ le$al order was oerthrown by the A;uino $oernment.. 0A le$al order is the authoritatie code of a $oernment polity. Such code consists of all the rules found in the enactments of the or$ans of the polity. @here the state operates under a written constitution, its or$ans may be readily determined from a readin$ of its proisions. +nce such or$ans are ascertained, it becomes an easy matter to locate their enactments. 2he rules in such enactments, alon$ with those in the constitution, comprise the le$al order of that constitutional state.0 '! %t is assumed that the le$al order remains as a 0culture system0 of the polity as lon$ as the latter endures -" and that a point may be reached, howeer, where the le$al system ceases to be operatie as a whole for it is no lon$er obeyed by the population nor enforced by the o)cials. -1
%t is widely #nown that 7rs. A;uinos rise to the presidency was not due to constitutiona constitutionall processesG in fact, iitt was achieed in iolation of the proisions of the 1!Constitution as a /atasan$ Pambans Pambansa a resolution had earlier declared 7r. 7r. 7arcos at the winner in the 1!(5 presidential election. -' 2hus it can be said that the or$aniation of 7rs. A;uinos *oernment which was met by little resistance and her control of the state eidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other #ey o)cers of the administration, the departure of the 7arcos Cabinet o)cials, reampt of the Judiciary and the 7ilitary si$nalled the point where the le$al system then in e6ect, had ceased to be obeyed by the ilipino. 2he Court holds that that the Court o off Appeals and %ntermediate %ntermediat e Appellate Court e<istin$ prior to <ecutie +rder No. -- phased out as part of the le$al system abolished by the reolution and that the Court of Appeals established under <ecutie +rder No. -- was an entirely new court with appointments thereto hain$ no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished courts, and that the reference refere nce to precedence in ran# contained in the last sentence of Sec. ', /P /l$. No. 1'! as amended by <ecutie +rder No. -- refers to prospectie situations as distin$uished from retroactie ones. /ut een assumin$, ar$uendo, that <ecutie +rder No. -did not abolish the precedence or seniority ran#in$ resultin$ from preious appointment to the Court of Appeals or %ntermediate Appellate Court e<istin$ prior to the 1!(5 reolution, it is belieed that President A;uino as head of then $oernmen $oernment, disre$ard set aside suchreolutionary precedence or seniorityt,incould ran#in$ when or she made her appointments to the reor$an reor$anied ied Court of Appeals in 1!(5. %t is to be noted that, at the time of the issuance of <ecutie +rder No. --, President A;uino was still e<ercisin$ e<er cisin$ the powers of a reolutionary $oernment $oernment,, encompassin$ both e<ecutie and le$islatie powers, such that she could, if she so desired, amend, modify or repeal any part of /.P. /l$. 1'! or her own <ecutie +rder No. --. %t should also be remembered that the same situation was still in force when she issued the 1!(5 appointments to the Court of Appeals. %n other words, President A;uino, at the time of the issuance of the 1!(5 appointments, modi&ed or disre$arded the rule embodied in /.P. /l$. 1'! as amended by <ecutie +rder No. --, on precedence or seniority in the case of the petitioner, for reasons #nown only to her. Since the appointment e<tended by the President Preside nt to the petitioner in 1!(5 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 Presidents Preside nts e<ercise of her then reolutionary powers, it is not for the Court at this time to ;uestion or correct that e<ercise. ACC+R3%N*E, the Court *RAN2S the 7otion for Reconsideration Reco nsideration 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!(5, are reco$nied and upheld. S+ +R3R3.
