Nothing exciting or amazing about my blog. Initially I thought it would just be a repository of my legal research materials. But little did I realize how it became a note of all sorts.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
2007 Case Digest in Land Registration
GULLAS LAW SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF THE VISAYAS
Property Registration Decree
(P.D. 1529) and Related laws
Case Studies
A Digest of Selected 2007 Supreme Court Decisions
Prepared by:
Dean Teodoro A. Almase
For a full and comprehensive understanding of the following
doctrinal jurisprudence, the students of law must still read the entire text
(not just the syllabi) of these selected Supreme Court Decisions
SURVEY OF 2007 CASES INVOLVING LAND TITLES AND LAND REGISTRATION
I. LAND TITLES:
ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLES
Ingusan vs. Hrs. of Reyes (531 SCRA 315) No collateral attack on title allowed
Invoking the invalidity of an original certificate of title as an affirmative defense in an answer and the prayer for the declaration of its nullity is a collateral attack on a certificate of title and is not allowed.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda de Mende (512 SCRA 97) No collateral attack on title
A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The question on the validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral proceeding. The action for the declaration of nullity of deed of sale commenced by the petitioners in the RTC is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of title.
Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez (532 SCRA 642) No collateral attack on title
A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible. The power to pass upon the validity of such certificate of title at first instance belongs to the Regional Trial Court in a direct proceeding for the cancellation of title. The alleged invalidity of a Torrens certificate of title may not be raised by way of a defense in an ejectment case where the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon only for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.
Azana vs. Lumbo (518 SCRA 707) Quieting of Title
An action for quieting of title may be brought by the owner of a property who is disturbed in any way in his right by an unfounded claim.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.]
The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.
Hrs. of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343) Reconveyance is imprescriptible if title still in name of person who caused wrongful registration
The real owner has the right to sue for reconveyance (an action in personam) of a property. The action is imprescriptible if the land wrongfully registered is still in the name of the person who caused the registration.
Pedrano vs. Hrs. Benedicto Pedrano
[G.R. No. 159666. December 4, 2007.] No prescription where no title issued
An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust, as we have already explained in this case, prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property; however, where no OCT has yet been issued despite an order from the court to title the lots, the date from whence the prescriptive period could be reckoned is unknown and it could not be determined if indeed the period had already lapsed or not. Thus, we agree with the CA that prescription has not yet set in.
Llemos vs. Llemos (513 SCRA 128)
Santos vs. Lumbao (519 SCRA 408) Reconveyance is imprescriptible where plaintiff is in possession
An action for annulment of title/reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.
Antonio vs. Santos (538 SCRA 1) Reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes 4 years from discovery of fraud which discovery is deemed to have taken place upon issuance of certificate of title
Note should be taken of the established doctrine that an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. Registration of real property is considered constructive notice to all persons, thus, the four-year period shall be counted therefrom.
Hrs. of Zoilo Espiritu vs. Landrito (520 SCRA 383) Reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes 10 years after date of registration
An action for reconveyance prescribes 10 years from the date of registration of the certificate of sale if the action is based on implied trust arising from a wrongful foreclosure with iniquitous interest. The principal obligation still stands however the interest is set at 12% per annum which should be paid.
Azana vs. Lumbo (518 SCRA 707)
Non-declaration of property for tax purposes does not necessarily negate ownership.
Tapuroc vs. Loquellano vda de Mende (512SCRA 100)
If title to property is coupled with payment of realty taxes and possession in concept of owner for more than 30 years, then the title to land became indefeasible and possession by registered owner cannot be disturbed
Pascual vs. Coronel (527 SCRA 474)
A registered owner with title has a better right to possess the land as opposed to a vendee with an unregistered sale.
LACHES
Hrs. of Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343)
It is the better rule that courts under the principle of equity will not be guided by the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice will result.
Llemos vs. Llemos (513 SCRA 128)
Laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud or injustice.
D’Oro Land Realty & Devt. Corporation vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681) Squatters cannot invoke defense of laches
A squatter has no right of possession that may be prejudiced by his eviction. Unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision ordering the return of the lots to the registered owner, the equitable defense of laches will not apply as against the latter.
Although a registered owner may lose his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason of laches, the equitable defense is unavailing to one who has not shown any color of title to the property such as a squatter.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513)
An action to recover lands of the public domain is imprescriptible. Such right however can be barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 which recognizes the rights of innocent purchasers for value above the interests of the government.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda. De Mende (512 SCRA 97)
A complaint for declaration of nullity of an alleged forged deed filed 29 years from execution was held barred by laches.
MISCELLANEOUS
Life Homes Realty vs. Court of Appeals (516 SCRA 6) Corrections in Plans
“ The Court agrees with the CA that such defects in plans prepared in connection with areas adjudicated in ordinary or voluntary registration proceedings may be corrected after the cadastral survey in accordance with Sec. 108 of P.D. No. 1529, thus:
SEC. 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. — No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; . . . or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court, which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. . . .
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
The last paragraph above provides that a petition for correction shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. As stated by the CA, the jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies with the Land Registration Court which heard and decided the voluntary registration proceedings filed by private respondent. The rule aims to prevent confusion and to avoid difficulty in tracing the origin of entries in the registry. (Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 190.11)
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp. Jurisdiction of Cadastral Courts
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.]
The reality that cadastral courts may have jurisdiction over lands already registered in ordinary land registration cases was acknowledged by this Court in Pamintuan v. San Agustin. 43 Phil. 558 (1922). Such jurisdiction is "limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title." (Id. at 561.) It was further clarified in Timbol v. Diaz (44 Phil. 587 (1923))that the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court over such lands even extends to the determination of "which one of the several conflicting registered titles shall prevail[, as such] power would seem to be necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land, the express purpose of cadastral proceedings, and must therefore be considered to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such proceedings." (Id. at 590.)
Alfonso vs Office of the President (520 SCRA 64) Duty of Register of Deeds To Require Submission of Approved Subdivision Plan, Technical Description & Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title Before Issuing New Titles
The observations of the LRA and the DOJ on petitioner's failure to require the presentation of the subdivision plan for Rivera's three titles are in keeping with the provisions of Sections 50 and 58 of P.D. No. 1529, as follows:
SEC. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. — Any owner subdividing a tract of registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision project as defined and provided for under P.D. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or with the Bureau of Lands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be distinctly and accurately delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. — If a deed of conveyance is for a part of the land described in a certificate of title, the Register of Deeds shall not enter any transfer certificate of title to the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided and the corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified and approved pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree. . . .
Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of the plan, together with a certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for annotation in the corresponding certificate of title and thereupon said officer shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for the portion conveyed, and at the same time cancel the grantor's certificate partially with respect only to the said portion conveyed. . . .
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is clearly evident from the above provisions that for petitioner- register of deeds to issue a new certificate of title, she must require the submission of the approved subdivision plan together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title. Therefore, she could not have dispensed with the submission of the subdivision plan and relied solely on the technical descriptions provided in the court's Order.
Likewise, this Court holds that petitioner should have required proof of payment of inheritance tax over the portions that were transferred to Rivera because these lots were conveyances from the estate of her alleged grandmother, Maria Consolacion Vidal, in whose name the lots were originally registered under OCT No. 994.
PATENTS/GOVERNMENT AWARD
Taguinod vs. Court of Appeals (533 SCRA 403)
The rights of a homestead patentee are superior to that of a tenant under the Agrarian Reform Law.
Justalero vs. Gonzales (517 SCRA 341)
Where the predecessor of a free patent applicant did not avail of any legal remedy to assail a decision adverse to him, his successors are bound thereby.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs Republic (537 SCRA 513)
Reversion suits were originally utilized to annul titles/patents administratively issued by the Director of the Lands Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR.
National Housing Authority vs. Soledad Pascual,
[G.R. No. 158364. November 28, 2007.] Nullification of award by the government if it involves annulment of a title issued, may be filed in court.
In a number of cases decided by this Court, we have sustained the propriety of the action for annulment of title and the consequent nullification of awards granted by the government in favor of wrongful grantees who obtained said grants in violation of public policy or through fraudulent means. In Swan v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114) this Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for annulment and cancellation of title which also prayed for the annulment of the award by the NHA of the disputed lot. In sustaining the stand of petitioner therein, the Court held:
. . . Their action in the court below . . . being one for annulment of title of the private respondents, the Regional Trial Courts have original jurisdiction to entertain the same. What Raymundo prohibits is the cognizance by the courts of actions to annul NHA awards of sale of its lots. Actually, the next step for annulling an NHA award of sale is an appeal to the Office of the President within 33 days from receipt of the NHA decision awarding the lot to another party. After which step, the aggrieved party can go to the Courts via Rule 65. (Id. at 121-122.29)
National Housing Authority vs. Soledad Pascual,
[G.R. No. 158364. November 28, 2007. Courts may not review power of government agencies to grant awards if no nullification of title is involved.
The ruling of this Court in Raymundo v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation(200 Phil. 191 (1982) still stands that the power to dispose of the lands placed under the administration of the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation (now National Housing Authority) is lodged in said body. There is no provision of law authorizing courts to review decisions of respondent PHHC and to take cognizance of actions to annul awards of sale of any other action made by it pursuant to the authority granted it by law, unless a prayer for nullification of title is in the Complaint.
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS
Tanglao vs. Parungao (535 SCRA 123)
The act of registration by the second buyer must be coupled with good faith and no knowledge of any defect or lack of title of the vendor or that he is not aware of facts which should put him upon inquiry and investigation as must be necessary to acquaint him with defects in the title.
Fudot vs. Cattleya Land Inc. (533 SCRA 351)
Knowledge gained by first buyer of second sale cannot defeat first buyer’s rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first. It is essential to merit the protection of Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code, that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale.
Hrs. of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343)
Registration under the Torrens system does not create nor vest title if title was based on a forged deed.
Amodia vda de Melencion vs. Court of Appeals (534 SCRA 62) Registration Under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code; Registration of Sale of Titled Land Under Act 3344
The registration under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code refers to registration under the torrens system which considers the act of registration as the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
If a parcel of land is registered under the Land Registration Act and has a torrens certificate of title and is sold and the sale is registered not under Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered registered as the term is used under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land does not convert the land into unregistered land.
Hrs. of Zoilo Espiritu vs. Landrito (520 SCRA 385)
Registration of a foreclosure sale (where debtors were not given opportunity to settle their debt at the correct amount without iniquitous interest) cannot transfer any rights over mortgaged property – even after the expiration of 1 year from registration of sale.
Santos vs. Lumbao (519 SCRA 408)
The failure of a contracting party to have a document registered does not affect its validity and enforceability as between the contracting parties for registration serves chiefly to bind third persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into.
Pineda vs. Arcalas (538 SCRA 596) A levy on execution registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale – a registered lien is entitled to preferential consideration. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered.
The Court held that a registered writ of attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against a particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] No registration is made in cases of illegal transfers
The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it. Certainly, it cannot be used to divest the lawful owner of his title for the purpose of transferring it to another who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Where such an illegal transfer is made, as in the case at bar, the law presumes that no registration has been made and so retains title in the real owner of the land.
Sanchez vs. Mapalad Realty Corporation
[G.R. No. 148516. December 27, 2007.] Buyer acquires no title if sale was done with fraud
Where a deed of sale was attended by fraud and proved to be fictitious, the buyer acquired no title to the subject property. The sale of four parcels of prime land along Roxas Boulevard surrendered by a former associate of President Marcos to the Aquino government bears the earmarks of a grand scam perpetrated by the very same persons appointed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to safeguard the assets of the sequestered companies.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] Conveyance of real estate must be made in a proper instrument to transfer title
It is settled that a donation of real estate propter nuptias under the Old Civil Code, is void unless made by public instrument. In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias executed when the Old Civil Code was in effect, did not become valid. Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument. Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners' predecessors.
SALE OF REAL ESTATE
Domingo Realty Inc vs. Court of Appeals (513 SCRA 40) Caveat Emptor Principle
Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and the accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title. It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties. Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor David Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by another.
Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186) Unit Price Contract vs. Lump Sum
In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.
In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate object.
TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Borbe vs. Calalo (535 SCRA 89) Torrens Certificate Is Constructive Notice
The issuance of a torrens certificate of title is constructive notice to the whole word that the person in whose name it is issued has become the owner of the lot described therein.
Republic vs. Mendoza, Sr. (519 SCRA 203) Reliability of Title
One who deals with property registered under Torrens system may safely rely on the title and is charged only with burdens and claims annotated on the title.
Tanglao vs. Parungao (535 SCRA 123)
Indefeasibility of title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.
D’Oro Land Realty & Devt Corp vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681)
A certificate of title can not be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession by third persons.
Ochoa vs. Apeta (533 SCRA 235)
No title to registered land in derogation to that of registered owner or his hereditary successors (who merely step into the shoes of the decedent) shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Barstowe vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148)
The Republic may not go after innocent purchasers of lots of a subdivision owner (who is guilty of securing titles fraudulently) who looked into TCTs of developer and found nothing to raise doubts as to their validity and authenticity.
Antonio vs. Santos (538 SCRA 1) When two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail and Holder of a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
This court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
II. LAND REGISTRATION:
P.D. 1529 SEC. 14 (1) AND (2)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271)
Limcoma Multipurpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233)
Applicant may acquire title by prescription under Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529 even if he cannot prove possession since June 12, 1945
Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws."
It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid ruling of the Court that even if the possession of alienable lands of the public domain commenced only after 12 June 1945, application for registration of the said property is still possible by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree which speaks of prescription.
Under the Civil Code, prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides:
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
Also in Article 1113 of the Civil Code, it is provided that:
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivision not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
Likewise, Article 1137 of the Civil Code states that:
Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is well-settled that properties classified as alienable and disposable land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. Such property now falls within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14 (2), over which title by prescription can be acquired. Hence, because of Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, those who are in possession of alienable and disposable land, and whose possession has been characterized as open, continuous and exclusive for 30 years or more, may have the right to register their title to such land despite the fact that their possession of the land commenced only after 12 June 1945. 29
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294)
Reyes vs. Republic (512 SCRA 217)
Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended (Public Land Act), and Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, require that the applicants must prove that the land is alienable and disposable public land; and that they or through their predecessors in interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Republic vs. Sarmiento (518 SCRA 250 ) Applicant Under Act 141 must prove how his title was acquired from State
It is well settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233) Difference Between Registration Proceedings Under P.D. 1529 and Act 141
Notably, Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, are original registration proceedings, against the whole world, and the decree of registration issued for both is conclusive and final. It is evident from the above-cited provisions that an application for land registration must conform to three requisites: (1) the land is alienable public land; (2) the applicant's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (3) it is under a bona fide claim of ownership.
The laws vary only with respect to their operation. Under the Property Registration Decree, there already exists a title which the court need only confirm while the Public Land Act works under the presumption that the land applied for still pertains to the State, and the occupants and possessors merely claim an interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open, and notorious possession thereof.
CERTIFICATE OF ALIENABILITY
Republic vs. Bibonia (525 SCRA 268) Land must be alienable and disposable as of time of filing of application for registration of title not necessarily as of June 12, 1945
Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
Republic vs. Mendoza (519 SCA 203) Courts cannot inquire into reasons why a land is reclassified into alienable and disposable land
X X X it cannot be gainsaid that the prerogative of classifying public lands pertains to administrative agencies which have been specially tasked by statutes to do so and that the courts will not interfere on matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government and/or quasi-judicial agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training. It should be stressed that the function of administering and disposing of lands of the public domain in the manner prescribed by law is not entrusted to the courts but to executive officials. And as such, courts should refrain from looking into the underlying reasons or grounds which impelled the classification and declaration of Silot Bay as timberland and its subsequent release as alienable and disposable land. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the Bureau of Forestry released Silot Bay as alienable and disposable by virtue of the Memorandum issued by then President Marcos on 16 January 1967 which clearly empowered said bureau to identify and locate the 700,000 hectares of fishpond areas and to release said areas as alienable and disposable. Hence, the courts, in view of the clear legal directive by which said area was released as alienable and disposable, will refrain from questioning the wisdom of such classification or declaration.
Domingo vs. Landicho (531 SCRA 606)
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 705)
Applicant must prove positive act of government that land is alienable and disposable
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State, and unless it has been shown that they have been reclassified by the State as alienable or disposable to a private person, they remain part of the inalienable public domain.
To prove that a land is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, or administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or statute.
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294) Certificate of Alienability Is Not Proof of Possession
Second, the acceptance by the courts a quo of the CENRO certificate of alienability and disposability as evidence of possession since the date of said certificate is patently erroneous. According to the CENRO certification, the subject land was alienable and disposable public land since June 7, 1938. This certification does not in any way indicate that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the property as far back as 1938.
Republic vs. Sarmiento (518 SCRA 250 ) Surveyor’s Certification Is Not Proof That Land Is Alienable and Disposable
A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable. It is not enough to rely on blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry."
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 1) A mere notation on the advance plan to the effect that said properties are alienable and disposable is not the kind of proof required by law to prove that land is alienable.
Republic vs. Consunji (533 SCRA 269)
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 705)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271)
Certification from the Government/DENR that land is alienable and disposable is sufficient to prove its status as such.
The certification from the DENR that the land subject of the application is within the alienable and disposable project, is sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the subject properties. Similarly, it enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
APPLICATION
Herce, Jr. vs. Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna (512 SCRA 332, 333) The Court may order the striking out of one or more parcels or the severance of the application for registration of title which refers to more than one parcel of land
An application for land registration may include two or more parcels of land, but the court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or order a severance of the application.
DEATH OF AN APPLICANT DURING PENDENCY OF
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE
Domingo vs. Landicho ((531 SCRA 606) The Court must order the substitution of heirs of an applicant who died during pendency of the land registration case
When a party dies in an action that survives and no order is issued by the court for the appearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the deceased in substitution of the deceased, and as a matter of fact no substitution has ever been effected, the proceedings held by the court without such legal representatives or heirs and the judgment rendered after such trial are null and void because the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the legal representative or of the heirs upon whom the trial and judgment would be binding. Unlike, however, jurisdiction over the subject matter which is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case may, however, be waived either expressly or impliedly.
INITIAL HEARING
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294) Initial Hearing Beyond the 90-Day Period
The duty and the power to set the hearing date lie with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law requires the issuance of a court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to which the party applicant absolutely has no participation. X X X Respondent should not be faulted if the initial hearing that was conducted on September 23, 1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, and (b) that respondent might have substantially complied with the requirement thereunder relating to the registration of the subject land." Hence, on the issue of jurisdiction, we find for the respondent, in that its application for registration was rightfully given due course by the MTCC.
PUBLICATION
Hrs. of Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38) Technical Description of Smaller Lots Sought to Be Registered Must Be Published
If what is sought to be registered are sublots of a bigger lot, the publication must contain the technical descriptions of the smaller lots since the adjoining owners of the mother lot are not the adjoining owners of the smaller lots.
EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION
A. TAX DECLARATIONS
Republic vs. Consunji (533 SCRA 269) Even if earliest tax declarations do not date back to 1945, still if there is credible testimony, court will grant petition for registration.
The fact that the earliest tax declarations of the lots were for the year 1955 will not mitigate against respondent. In Recto v. Republic (440 SCRA 79) it was held that:
. . . the belated declaration of the lot for tax purposes does not necessarily mean that possession by the previous owners thereof did not commence in 1945 or earlier. As long as the testimony supporting possession for the required period is credible, the court will grant the petition for registration.
Hrs. of Marina Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38) Delayed declaration for tax purpose negates claim of continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession as owner
While it is a good indication of possession in the concept of owner, delayed declaration of property for tax purposes negates a claim of continuous, exclusive, and interrupted possession in the concept of an owner.
Republic vs. Sta. Ana Burgos (523 SCRA 309)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271) Tax declarations especially dating back to 1948 or 1945 are good indicia of ownership
As a rule, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 1) Tax receipts and declarations when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription.
It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property.
TRACING CLOTH/SURVEY PLAN
Republic vs. Munoz (536 SCRA 108) Original tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with if there is duly certified blue print copy of tracing cloth with technical description
In the case of Recto vs. Republic (440 SCRA 79), the Supreme Court held that a duly certified blue print copy of the tracing cloth with the technical description is sufficient compliance and the submission of the survey plan on tracing cloth may be dispensed with.
Dolino vs. Court of Appeals (401 SCRA 695) DENR officials may be compelled to conduct a survey of land subject of an application for registration of title notwithstanding the PP No. 932 which DENR says has withdrawn subject lot from entry, sale, disposition and settlement.
A survey of the land subject of an application for registration is an essential requirement for without the lot being surveyed, an applicant would not be able to initiate proper land registration proceedings. The DENR may be compelled to conduct a survey and inspection of lots subject of application for registration for this would not automatically result in the adjudication of lots to the applicants if the land is not alienable and disposable and if they have not possessed it for the length of time and manner required by law.
JUDGMENT
Ting vs. Hrs. of Lirio (518 SCRA 336) Final and executory judgment in land registration case need not be enforced by motion or an action under Sec 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al. (111 Phil. 947, 951 (1961) enunciates the raison d'etre why Section 6, Rule 39 does not apply in land registration proceedings, viz:
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant in support of the above assignment, except in so far as it supports his theory that after a decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another proceeding to enforce the judgment or decision. Authority for this theory is the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Republic vs. Nillas (512 SCRA 286) Failure of administrative authorities to issue decree cannot oust prevailing party from ownership of land
The provision lays down the procedure that interposes between the rendition of the judgment and the issuance of the certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is imposed by Section 39 on the prevailing applicant or oppositor even as a precondition to the issuance of the title. The obligations provided in the Section are levied on the land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land Registration Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding decree of registration), its clerk of court (that is to transmit copies of the judgment and the order to the Commissioner), and the Land Registration Commissioner (that is to cause the preparation of the decree of registration and the transmittal thereof to the Register of Deeds). All these obligations are ministerial on the officers charged with their performance and thus generally beyond discretion of amendment or review.
The failure on the part of the administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership of the land. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow up with said authorities can. The ultimate goal of our land registration system is geared towards the final and definitive determination of real property ownership in the country, and the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the judgment in the land registration case had attained finality would simply frustrate such goal.
ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Hrs. of Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38)
The failure of the Republic to file any opposition or answer to the application for registration, despite receipt of notice thereof, did not deprive its right to appeal the RTC decision.
Barstowe Philippines Corporation vs. Republic (519 SCRA 238)
Republic vs. Mendoza (519 SCRA 203)
Exception to rule that estoppel does not lie vs. government
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. However, like all general rules, this is also subject to exceptions, viz:
"Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should not be invoked except in rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. They must be applied with circumspection and should be applied only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations . . . the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as well as against private individuals."
xxx xxx xxx
It is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel by laches against the government to avoid an injustice to the innocent purchasers for value.
Likewise time-settled is the doctrine that where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title, acquire rights over the property, courts cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. Such cancellation would impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly issued or not. This would be contrary to the very purpose of the law, which is to stabilize land titles. Verily, all persons dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law or the courts do not oblige, them to go behind the certificate in order to investigate again the true condition of the property. They are only charged with notice of the lions and encumbrances on the property that are noted on the certificate.
Estate of Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Estoppel may lie against the Government if it did not act to contest title for unreasonable length of time
Subject to its limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when the lot is alienated to innocent purchasers for value and the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.
ISSUANCE OF A DECREE
Hrs. of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
Petition for Review of Decree must be filed within 1 year from issuance of decree otherwise title becomes indefeasible
When the petition for review of decree is filed after the expiration of one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration, the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon. The certificate of title that was issued attained the status of indefeasibility one year after its issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat title previously issued by subsequently filing an application for registration of land previous registered.
See also Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186)
Ingusan vs. Hrs. of Aureliano Reyes (513 SCRA 315)
When an original certificate of title is secured fraudulently and in breach of trust, a direct attack on the title is a petition for review of decree of registration under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529.
Hrs. of Maximo Labanon vs. Hrs. of Constancio Labanon (530 SCRA 97) If petition for review of decree is not possible, there are other remedies for reconveyance of property to rightful owner
Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name of another. Section 32 of PD 1529 merely precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the property to its rightful owner. As elaborated in Heirs of Clemente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac (403 SCRA 291, 297):
While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. 7
A more succinct explanation is found in Vda. De Recinto v. Inciong (77 SCRA 196, 201.) thus:
The mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included. It is evident from the records that the petitioner owns the portion in question and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp.
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.] It is from date of issuance of a title when the decree of registration is transcribed that a certificate of title is to take effect
With the plain language of the law as mooring, this Court in two vintage and sound rulings made it plain that the original certificate of title is issued on the date the decree of registration is transcribed. In the first ruling, it was held that there is a marked distinction between the entry of the decree and the entry of the certificate of title; the entry of the decree is made by the chief clerk of the land registration and the entry of the certificate of title is made by the register of deeds. (Antiporda v. Mapa, 55 Phil. 89, 91 (1930). Such difference is highlighted by Sec. 31 of Act No. 496 as it provides that the certificate of title is issued in pursuance of the decree of registration. In the second, it was stressed that what stands as the certificate of the title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the registrar of deeds in the registry. (PNB v. Tan, 51 Phil. 317, 321 (1927))
Otherwise stated, what is actually issued by the register of deeds is the certificate of title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the recipient from the land registration office of the decree for transcription to the certificate as well as the transcriber no less. Since what is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994 indicates that it was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on 3 May 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration since that was when he was able to transcribe the decree in the registration book, such entry made in the book being the original certificate of title. (See Act No. 496, Sec. 41.) Moreover, it is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect..
RES JUDICATA
Hrs. Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
A previous final and executory judgment awarding the lot in favor of a party bars the losing party from later filing an application for registration of title covering the same lot.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLES
Hrs. of Venturanza vs. Republic (528 SCRA 238)
A court has no jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of title over land which was never registered. The records of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, do not show how the land covered by TCT No. 140 supposedly in the name of Florencio Mora was registered. A land may be considered as not having been originally registered if there is no decree number, original certificate of title number or LRC Record.
Barstowe Philippines Corporation vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148) Judicially reconstituted titles are superior to administratively reconstituted titles.
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof" unless the reconstitution was made extrajudicially. In contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which is in rem, the administrative reconstitution is essentially ex-parte and without notice. The reconstituted certificates of title do not share the same indefeasible character of the original certificates of title for the following reason —
The nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate Of Title of registered land is similar to that of a second Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate Of Title. Both are issued, after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that the original of the said TCT or the original of the Owner's Duplicate TCT, respectively, was lost and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted for that purpose. Both, therefore, are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A cursory examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put on notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra-careful. .
REVERSION BY THE GOVERNMENT
Hrs. of Venturanza vs. Republic (528 SCRA 238) The Government can file reversion proceedings to recover inalienable lands of public domain even if in hands of innocent purchasers for value.
It is, thus, safe to conclude that the land subject of TCT No. 2574 could not have been registered in the name of petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest for the simple reason that under the Constitution, timberlands, which are part of the public domain, cannot be alienated. A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void and can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found. Thus, we have ruled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on non-disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Action for reversion which seeks to cancel a judgment of the RTC awarding lot to an applicant should be filed before Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
While CA No. 141 did not specify whether judicial confirmation of titles by a land registration court can be subject of a reversion suit, the government availed of such remedy by filing actions with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel titles and decrees granted in land registration applications, but the situation changed on 14 August 1981 upon the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which gave the Intermediate Appellate Court the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. When the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure became effective on 1 July 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts. Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of public land instituted by the Government was already covered by Rule 47 and the same should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court.
UNIVERSITY OF THE VISAYAS
Property Registration Decree
(P.D. 1529) and Related laws
Case Studies
A Digest of Selected 2007 Supreme Court Decisions
Prepared by:
Dean Teodoro A. Almase
For a full and comprehensive understanding of the following
doctrinal jurisprudence, the students of law must still read the entire text
(not just the syllabi) of these selected Supreme Court Decisions
SURVEY OF 2007 CASES INVOLVING LAND TITLES AND LAND REGISTRATION
I. LAND TITLES:
ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLES
Ingusan vs. Hrs. of Reyes (531 SCRA 315) No collateral attack on title allowed
Invoking the invalidity of an original certificate of title as an affirmative defense in an answer and the prayer for the declaration of its nullity is a collateral attack on a certificate of title and is not allowed.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda de Mende (512 SCRA 97) No collateral attack on title
A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The question on the validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral proceeding. The action for the declaration of nullity of deed of sale commenced by the petitioners in the RTC is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of title.
Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez (532 SCRA 642) No collateral attack on title
A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible. The power to pass upon the validity of such certificate of title at first instance belongs to the Regional Trial Court in a direct proceeding for the cancellation of title. The alleged invalidity of a Torrens certificate of title may not be raised by way of a defense in an ejectment case where the question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon only for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.
Azana vs. Lumbo (518 SCRA 707) Quieting of Title
An action for quieting of title may be brought by the owner of a property who is disturbed in any way in his right by an unfounded claim.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.]
The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.
Hrs. of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343) Reconveyance is imprescriptible if title still in name of person who caused wrongful registration
The real owner has the right to sue for reconveyance (an action in personam) of a property. The action is imprescriptible if the land wrongfully registered is still in the name of the person who caused the registration.
Pedrano vs. Hrs. Benedicto Pedrano
[G.R. No. 159666. December 4, 2007.] No prescription where no title issued
An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust, as we have already explained in this case, prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property; however, where no OCT has yet been issued despite an order from the court to title the lots, the date from whence the prescriptive period could be reckoned is unknown and it could not be determined if indeed the period had already lapsed or not. Thus, we agree with the CA that prescription has not yet set in.
Llemos vs. Llemos (513 SCRA 128)
Santos vs. Lumbao (519 SCRA 408) Reconveyance is imprescriptible where plaintiff is in possession
An action for annulment of title/reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.
Antonio vs. Santos (538 SCRA 1) Reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes 4 years from discovery of fraud which discovery is deemed to have taken place upon issuance of certificate of title
Note should be taken of the established doctrine that an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. Registration of real property is considered constructive notice to all persons, thus, the four-year period shall be counted therefrom.
Hrs. of Zoilo Espiritu vs. Landrito (520 SCRA 383) Reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes 10 years after date of registration
An action for reconveyance prescribes 10 years from the date of registration of the certificate of sale if the action is based on implied trust arising from a wrongful foreclosure with iniquitous interest. The principal obligation still stands however the interest is set at 12% per annum which should be paid.
Azana vs. Lumbo (518 SCRA 707)
Non-declaration of property for tax purposes does not necessarily negate ownership.
Tapuroc vs. Loquellano vda de Mende (512SCRA 100)
If title to property is coupled with payment of realty taxes and possession in concept of owner for more than 30 years, then the title to land became indefeasible and possession by registered owner cannot be disturbed
Pascual vs. Coronel (527 SCRA 474)
A registered owner with title has a better right to possess the land as opposed to a vendee with an unregistered sale.
LACHES
Hrs. of Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343)
It is the better rule that courts under the principle of equity will not be guided by the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice will result.
Llemos vs. Llemos (513 SCRA 128)
Laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud or injustice.
D’Oro Land Realty & Devt. Corporation vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681) Squatters cannot invoke defense of laches
A squatter has no right of possession that may be prejudiced by his eviction. Unless there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision ordering the return of the lots to the registered owner, the equitable defense of laches will not apply as against the latter.
Although a registered owner may lose his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason of laches, the equitable defense is unavailing to one who has not shown any color of title to the property such as a squatter.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513)
An action to recover lands of the public domain is imprescriptible. Such right however can be barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 which recognizes the rights of innocent purchasers for value above the interests of the government.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda. De Mende (512 SCRA 97)
A complaint for declaration of nullity of an alleged forged deed filed 29 years from execution was held barred by laches.
MISCELLANEOUS
Life Homes Realty vs. Court of Appeals (516 SCRA 6) Corrections in Plans
“ The Court agrees with the CA that such defects in plans prepared in connection with areas adjudicated in ordinary or voluntary registration proceedings may be corrected after the cadastral survey in accordance with Sec. 108 of P.D. No. 1529, thus:
SEC. 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. — No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; . . . or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court, which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. . . .
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
The last paragraph above provides that a petition for correction shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. As stated by the CA, the jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies with the Land Registration Court which heard and decided the voluntary registration proceedings filed by private respondent. The rule aims to prevent confusion and to avoid difficulty in tracing the origin of entries in the registry. (Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 190.11)
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp. Jurisdiction of Cadastral Courts
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.]
The reality that cadastral courts may have jurisdiction over lands already registered in ordinary land registration cases was acknowledged by this Court in Pamintuan v. San Agustin. 43 Phil. 558 (1922). Such jurisdiction is "limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands, provided such corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title." (Id. at 561.) It was further clarified in Timbol v. Diaz (44 Phil. 587 (1923))that the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court over such lands even extends to the determination of "which one of the several conflicting registered titles shall prevail[, as such] power would seem to be necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land, the express purpose of cadastral proceedings, and must therefore be considered to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such proceedings." (Id. at 590.)
Alfonso vs Office of the President (520 SCRA 64) Duty of Register of Deeds To Require Submission of Approved Subdivision Plan, Technical Description & Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title Before Issuing New Titles
The observations of the LRA and the DOJ on petitioner's failure to require the presentation of the subdivision plan for Rivera's three titles are in keeping with the provisions of Sections 50 and 58 of P.D. No. 1529, as follows:
SEC. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. — Any owner subdividing a tract of registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision project as defined and provided for under P.D. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or with the Bureau of Lands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be distinctly and accurately delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. — If a deed of conveyance is for a part of the land described in a certificate of title, the Register of Deeds shall not enter any transfer certificate of title to the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided and the corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified and approved pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree. . . .
Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of the plan, together with a certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for annotation in the corresponding certificate of title and thereupon said officer shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for the portion conveyed, and at the same time cancel the grantor's certificate partially with respect only to the said portion conveyed. . . .
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is clearly evident from the above provisions that for petitioner- register of deeds to issue a new certificate of title, she must require the submission of the approved subdivision plan together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title. Therefore, she could not have dispensed with the submission of the subdivision plan and relied solely on the technical descriptions provided in the court's Order.
Likewise, this Court holds that petitioner should have required proof of payment of inheritance tax over the portions that were transferred to Rivera because these lots were conveyances from the estate of her alleged grandmother, Maria Consolacion Vidal, in whose name the lots were originally registered under OCT No. 994.
PATENTS/GOVERNMENT AWARD
Taguinod vs. Court of Appeals (533 SCRA 403)
The rights of a homestead patentee are superior to that of a tenant under the Agrarian Reform Law.
Justalero vs. Gonzales (517 SCRA 341)
Where the predecessor of a free patent applicant did not avail of any legal remedy to assail a decision adverse to him, his successors are bound thereby.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs Republic (537 SCRA 513)
Reversion suits were originally utilized to annul titles/patents administratively issued by the Director of the Lands Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR.
National Housing Authority vs. Soledad Pascual,
[G.R. No. 158364. November 28, 2007.] Nullification of award by the government if it involves annulment of a title issued, may be filed in court.
In a number of cases decided by this Court, we have sustained the propriety of the action for annulment of title and the consequent nullification of awards granted by the government in favor of wrongful grantees who obtained said grants in violation of public policy or through fraudulent means. In Swan v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 97319, August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 114) this Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint for annulment and cancellation of title which also prayed for the annulment of the award by the NHA of the disputed lot. In sustaining the stand of petitioner therein, the Court held:
. . . Their action in the court below . . . being one for annulment of title of the private respondents, the Regional Trial Courts have original jurisdiction to entertain the same. What Raymundo prohibits is the cognizance by the courts of actions to annul NHA awards of sale of its lots. Actually, the next step for annulling an NHA award of sale is an appeal to the Office of the President within 33 days from receipt of the NHA decision awarding the lot to another party. After which step, the aggrieved party can go to the Courts via Rule 65. (Id. at 121-122.29)
National Housing Authority vs. Soledad Pascual,
[G.R. No. 158364. November 28, 2007. Courts may not review power of government agencies to grant awards if no nullification of title is involved.
The ruling of this Court in Raymundo v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation(200 Phil. 191 (1982) still stands that the power to dispose of the lands placed under the administration of the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation (now National Housing Authority) is lodged in said body. There is no provision of law authorizing courts to review decisions of respondent PHHC and to take cognizance of actions to annul awards of sale of any other action made by it pursuant to the authority granted it by law, unless a prayer for nullification of title is in the Complaint.
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS
Tanglao vs. Parungao (535 SCRA 123)
The act of registration by the second buyer must be coupled with good faith and no knowledge of any defect or lack of title of the vendor or that he is not aware of facts which should put him upon inquiry and investigation as must be necessary to acquaint him with defects in the title.
Fudot vs. Cattleya Land Inc. (533 SCRA 351)
Knowledge gained by first buyer of second sale cannot defeat first buyer’s rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first. It is essential to merit the protection of Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code, that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale.
Hrs. of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343)
Registration under the Torrens system does not create nor vest title if title was based on a forged deed.
Amodia vda de Melencion vs. Court of Appeals (534 SCRA 62) Registration Under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code; Registration of Sale of Titled Land Under Act 3344
The registration under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code refers to registration under the torrens system which considers the act of registration as the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
If a parcel of land is registered under the Land Registration Act and has a torrens certificate of title and is sold and the sale is registered not under Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered registered as the term is used under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land does not convert the land into unregistered land.
Hrs. of Zoilo Espiritu vs. Landrito (520 SCRA 385)
Registration of a foreclosure sale (where debtors were not given opportunity to settle their debt at the correct amount without iniquitous interest) cannot transfer any rights over mortgaged property – even after the expiration of 1 year from registration of sale.
Santos vs. Lumbao (519 SCRA 408)
The failure of a contracting party to have a document registered does not affect its validity and enforceability as between the contracting parties for registration serves chiefly to bind third persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into.
Pineda vs. Arcalas (538 SCRA 596) A levy on execution registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale – a registered lien is entitled to preferential consideration. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered.
The Court held that a registered writ of attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against a particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] No registration is made in cases of illegal transfers
The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it. Certainly, it cannot be used to divest the lawful owner of his title for the purpose of transferring it to another who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another. Where such an illegal transfer is made, as in the case at bar, the law presumes that no registration has been made and so retains title in the real owner of the land.
Sanchez vs. Mapalad Realty Corporation
[G.R. No. 148516. December 27, 2007.] Buyer acquires no title if sale was done with fraud
Where a deed of sale was attended by fraud and proved to be fictitious, the buyer acquired no title to the subject property. The sale of four parcels of prime land along Roxas Boulevard surrendered by a former associate of President Marcos to the Aquino government bears the earmarks of a grand scam perpetrated by the very same persons appointed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to safeguard the assets of the sequestered companies.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] Conveyance of real estate must be made in a proper instrument to transfer title
It is settled that a donation of real estate propter nuptias under the Old Civil Code, is void unless made by public instrument. In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias executed when the Old Civil Code was in effect, did not become valid. Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument. Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners' predecessors.
SALE OF REAL ESTATE
Domingo Realty Inc vs. Court of Appeals (513 SCRA 40) Caveat Emptor Principle
Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and the accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title. It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties. Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor David Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by another.
Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186) Unit Price Contract vs. Lump Sum
In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.
In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate object.
TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Borbe vs. Calalo (535 SCRA 89) Torrens Certificate Is Constructive Notice
The issuance of a torrens certificate of title is constructive notice to the whole word that the person in whose name it is issued has become the owner of the lot described therein.
Republic vs. Mendoza, Sr. (519 SCRA 203) Reliability of Title
One who deals with property registered under Torrens system may safely rely on the title and is charged only with burdens and claims annotated on the title.
Tanglao vs. Parungao (535 SCRA 123)
Indefeasibility of title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.
D’Oro Land Realty & Devt Corp vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681)
A certificate of title can not be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession by third persons.
Ochoa vs. Apeta (533 SCRA 235)
No title to registered land in derogation to that of registered owner or his hereditary successors (who merely step into the shoes of the decedent) shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Barstowe vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148)
The Republic may not go after innocent purchasers of lots of a subdivision owner (who is guilty of securing titles fraudulently) who looked into TCTs of developer and found nothing to raise doubts as to their validity and authenticity.
Antonio vs. Santos (538 SCRA 1) When two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail and Holder of a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
This court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
II. LAND REGISTRATION:
P.D. 1529 SEC. 14 (1) AND (2)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271)
Limcoma Multipurpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233)
Applicant may acquire title by prescription under Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529 even if he cannot prove possession since June 12, 1945
Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the public domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not, considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws."
It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid ruling of the Court that even if the possession of alienable lands of the public domain commenced only after 12 June 1945, application for registration of the said property is still possible by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree which speaks of prescription.
Under the Civil Code, prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides:
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
Also in Article 1113 of the Civil Code, it is provided that:
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivision not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
Likewise, Article 1137 of the Civil Code states that:
Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is well-settled that properties classified as alienable and disposable land may be converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. Such property now falls within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14 (2), over which title by prescription can be acquired. Hence, because of Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, those who are in possession of alienable and disposable land, and whose possession has been characterized as open, continuous and exclusive for 30 years or more, may have the right to register their title to such land despite the fact that their possession of the land commenced only after 12 June 1945. 29
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294)
Reyes vs. Republic (512 SCRA 217)
Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended (Public Land Act), and Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, require that the applicants must prove that the land is alienable and disposable public land; and that they or through their predecessors in interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Republic vs. Sarmiento (518 SCRA 250 ) Applicant Under Act 141 must prove how his title was acquired from State
It is well settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233) Difference Between Registration Proceedings Under P.D. 1529 and Act 141
Notably, Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, are original registration proceedings, against the whole world, and the decree of registration issued for both is conclusive and final. It is evident from the above-cited provisions that an application for land registration must conform to three requisites: (1) the land is alienable public land; (2) the applicant's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (3) it is under a bona fide claim of ownership.
The laws vary only with respect to their operation. Under the Property Registration Decree, there already exists a title which the court need only confirm while the Public Land Act works under the presumption that the land applied for still pertains to the State, and the occupants and possessors merely claim an interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open, and notorious possession thereof.
CERTIFICATE OF ALIENABILITY
Republic vs. Bibonia (525 SCRA 268) Land must be alienable and disposable as of time of filing of application for registration of title not necessarily as of June 12, 1945
Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 is that it merely requires the property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed. If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property.
Republic vs. Mendoza (519 SCA 203) Courts cannot inquire into reasons why a land is reclassified into alienable and disposable land
X X X it cannot be gainsaid that the prerogative of classifying public lands pertains to administrative agencies which have been specially tasked by statutes to do so and that the courts will not interfere on matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government and/or quasi-judicial agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training. It should be stressed that the function of administering and disposing of lands of the public domain in the manner prescribed by law is not entrusted to the courts but to executive officials. And as such, courts should refrain from looking into the underlying reasons or grounds which impelled the classification and declaration of Silot Bay as timberland and its subsequent release as alienable and disposable land. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the Bureau of Forestry released Silot Bay as alienable and disposable by virtue of the Memorandum issued by then President Marcos on 16 January 1967 which clearly empowered said bureau to identify and locate the 700,000 hectares of fishpond areas and to release said areas as alienable and disposable. Hence, the courts, in view of the clear legal directive by which said area was released as alienable and disposable, will refrain from questioning the wisdom of such classification or declaration.
Domingo vs. Landicho (531 SCRA 606)
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 705)
Applicant must prove positive act of government that land is alienable and disposable
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State, and unless it has been shown that they have been reclassified by the State as alienable or disposable to a private person, they remain part of the inalienable public domain.
To prove that a land is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, or administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator or a legislative act or statute.
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294) Certificate of Alienability Is Not Proof of Possession
Second, the acceptance by the courts a quo of the CENRO certificate of alienability and disposability as evidence of possession since the date of said certificate is patently erroneous. According to the CENRO certification, the subject land was alienable and disposable public land since June 7, 1938. This certification does not in any way indicate that the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the property as far back as 1938.
Republic vs. Sarmiento (518 SCRA 250 ) Surveyor’s Certification Is Not Proof That Land Is Alienable and Disposable
A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable. It is not enough to rely on blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry."
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 1) A mere notation on the advance plan to the effect that said properties are alienable and disposable is not the kind of proof required by law to prove that land is alienable.
Republic vs. Consunji (533 SCRA 269)
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 705)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271)
Certification from the Government/DENR that land is alienable and disposable is sufficient to prove its status as such.
The certification from the DENR that the land subject of the application is within the alienable and disposable project, is sufficient to establish the true nature and character of the subject properties. Similarly, it enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
APPLICATION
Herce, Jr. vs. Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna (512 SCRA 332, 333) The Court may order the striking out of one or more parcels or the severance of the application for registration of title which refers to more than one parcel of land
An application for land registration may include two or more parcels of land, but the court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or order a severance of the application.
DEATH OF AN APPLICANT DURING PENDENCY OF
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE
Domingo vs. Landicho ((531 SCRA 606) The Court must order the substitution of heirs of an applicant who died during pendency of the land registration case
When a party dies in an action that survives and no order is issued by the court for the appearance of the legal representative or of the heirs of the deceased in substitution of the deceased, and as a matter of fact no substitution has ever been effected, the proceedings held by the court without such legal representatives or heirs and the judgment rendered after such trial are null and void because the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the legal representative or of the heirs upon whom the trial and judgment would be binding. Unlike, however, jurisdiction over the subject matter which is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case may, however, be waived either expressly or impliedly.
INITIAL HEARING
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294) Initial Hearing Beyond the 90-Day Period
The duty and the power to set the hearing date lie with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law requires the issuance of a court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to which the party applicant absolutely has no participation. X X X Respondent should not be faulted if the initial hearing that was conducted on September 23, 1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, and (b) that respondent might have substantially complied with the requirement thereunder relating to the registration of the subject land." Hence, on the issue of jurisdiction, we find for the respondent, in that its application for registration was rightfully given due course by the MTCC.
PUBLICATION
Hrs. of Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38) Technical Description of Smaller Lots Sought to Be Registered Must Be Published
If what is sought to be registered are sublots of a bigger lot, the publication must contain the technical descriptions of the smaller lots since the adjoining owners of the mother lot are not the adjoining owners of the smaller lots.
EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION
A. TAX DECLARATIONS
Republic vs. Consunji (533 SCRA 269) Even if earliest tax declarations do not date back to 1945, still if there is credible testimony, court will grant petition for registration.
The fact that the earliest tax declarations of the lots were for the year 1955 will not mitigate against respondent. In Recto v. Republic (440 SCRA 79) it was held that:
. . . the belated declaration of the lot for tax purposes does not necessarily mean that possession by the previous owners thereof did not commence in 1945 or earlier. As long as the testimony supporting possession for the required period is credible, the court will grant the petition for registration.
Hrs. of Marina Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38) Delayed declaration for tax purpose negates claim of continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession as owner
While it is a good indication of possession in the concept of owner, delayed declaration of property for tax purposes negates a claim of continuous, exclusive, and interrupted possession in the concept of an owner.
Republic vs. Sta. Ana Burgos (523 SCRA 309)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271) Tax declarations especially dating back to 1948 or 1945 are good indicia of ownership
As a rule, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
Republic vs. Barandiaran (538 SCRA 1) Tax receipts and declarations when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription.
It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property.
TRACING CLOTH/SURVEY PLAN
Republic vs. Munoz (536 SCRA 108) Original tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with if there is duly certified blue print copy of tracing cloth with technical description
In the case of Recto vs. Republic (440 SCRA 79), the Supreme Court held that a duly certified blue print copy of the tracing cloth with the technical description is sufficient compliance and the submission of the survey plan on tracing cloth may be dispensed with.
Dolino vs. Court of Appeals (401 SCRA 695) DENR officials may be compelled to conduct a survey of land subject of an application for registration of title notwithstanding the PP No. 932 which DENR says has withdrawn subject lot from entry, sale, disposition and settlement.
A survey of the land subject of an application for registration is an essential requirement for without the lot being surveyed, an applicant would not be able to initiate proper land registration proceedings. The DENR may be compelled to conduct a survey and inspection of lots subject of application for registration for this would not automatically result in the adjudication of lots to the applicants if the land is not alienable and disposable and if they have not possessed it for the length of time and manner required by law.
JUDGMENT
Ting vs. Hrs. of Lirio (518 SCRA 336) Final and executory judgment in land registration case need not be enforced by motion or an action under Sec 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al. (111 Phil. 947, 951 (1961) enunciates the raison d'etre why Section 6, Rule 39 does not apply in land registration proceedings, viz:
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant in support of the above assignment, except in so far as it supports his theory that after a decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another proceeding to enforce the judgment or decision. Authority for this theory is the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.
Republic vs. Nillas (512 SCRA 286) Failure of administrative authorities to issue decree cannot oust prevailing party from ownership of land
The provision lays down the procedure that interposes between the rendition of the judgment and the issuance of the certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is imposed by Section 39 on the prevailing applicant or oppositor even as a precondition to the issuance of the title. The obligations provided in the Section are levied on the land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land Registration Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding decree of registration), its clerk of court (that is to transmit copies of the judgment and the order to the Commissioner), and the Land Registration Commissioner (that is to cause the preparation of the decree of registration and the transmittal thereof to the Register of Deeds). All these obligations are ministerial on the officers charged with their performance and thus generally beyond discretion of amendment or review.
The failure on the part of the administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership of the land. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow up with said authorities can. The ultimate goal of our land registration system is geared towards the final and definitive determination of real property ownership in the country, and the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the judgment in the land registration case had attained finality would simply frustrate such goal.
ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Hrs. of Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38)
The failure of the Republic to file any opposition or answer to the application for registration, despite receipt of notice thereof, did not deprive its right to appeal the RTC decision.
Barstowe Philippines Corporation vs. Republic (519 SCRA 238)
Republic vs. Mendoza (519 SCRA 203)
Exception to rule that estoppel does not lie vs. government
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. However, like all general rules, this is also subject to exceptions, viz:
"Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should not be invoked except in rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. They must be applied with circumspection and should be applied only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations . . . the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as well as against private individuals."
xxx xxx xxx
It is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel by laches against the government to avoid an injustice to the innocent purchasers for value.
Likewise time-settled is the doctrine that where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title, acquire rights over the property, courts cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. Such cancellation would impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly issued or not. This would be contrary to the very purpose of the law, which is to stabilize land titles. Verily, all persons dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law or the courts do not oblige, them to go behind the certificate in order to investigate again the true condition of the property. They are only charged with notice of the lions and encumbrances on the property that are noted on the certificate.
Estate of Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Estoppel may lie against the Government if it did not act to contest title for unreasonable length of time
Subject to its limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when the lot is alienated to innocent purchasers for value and the government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.
ISSUANCE OF A DECREE
Hrs. of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
Petition for Review of Decree must be filed within 1 year from issuance of decree otherwise title becomes indefeasible
When the petition for review of decree is filed after the expiration of one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration, the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon. The certificate of title that was issued attained the status of indefeasibility one year after its issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat title previously issued by subsequently filing an application for registration of land previous registered.
See also Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186)
Ingusan vs. Hrs. of Aureliano Reyes (513 SCRA 315)
When an original certificate of title is secured fraudulently and in breach of trust, a direct attack on the title is a petition for review of decree of registration under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529.
Hrs. of Maximo Labanon vs. Hrs. of Constancio Labanon (530 SCRA 97) If petition for review of decree is not possible, there are other remedies for reconveyance of property to rightful owner
Contrary to petitioners' interpretation, Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name of another. Section 32 of PD 1529 merely precludes the reopening of the registration proceedings for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the property to its rightful owner. As elaborated in Heirs of Clemente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac (403 SCRA 291, 297):
While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. 7
A more succinct explanation is found in Vda. De Recinto v. Inciong (77 SCRA 196, 201.) thus:
The mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally included. It is evident from the records that the petitioner owns the portion in question and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp.
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.] It is from date of issuance of a title when the decree of registration is transcribed that a certificate of title is to take effect
With the plain language of the law as mooring, this Court in two vintage and sound rulings made it plain that the original certificate of title is issued on the date the decree of registration is transcribed. In the first ruling, it was held that there is a marked distinction between the entry of the decree and the entry of the certificate of title; the entry of the decree is made by the chief clerk of the land registration and the entry of the certificate of title is made by the register of deeds. (Antiporda v. Mapa, 55 Phil. 89, 91 (1930). Such difference is highlighted by Sec. 31 of Act No. 496 as it provides that the certificate of title is issued in pursuance of the decree of registration. In the second, it was stressed that what stands as the certificate of the title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the registrar of deeds in the registry. (PNB v. Tan, 51 Phil. 317, 321 (1927))
Otherwise stated, what is actually issued by the register of deeds is the certificate of title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the recipient from the land registration office of the decree for transcription to the certificate as well as the transcriber no less. Since what is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994 indicates that it was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on 3 May 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration since that was when he was able to transcribe the decree in the registration book, such entry made in the book being the original certificate of title. (See Act No. 496, Sec. 41.) Moreover, it is only after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect..
RES JUDICATA
Hrs. Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
A previous final and executory judgment awarding the lot in favor of a party bars the losing party from later filing an application for registration of title covering the same lot.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLES
Hrs. of Venturanza vs. Republic (528 SCRA 238)
A court has no jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of title over land which was never registered. The records of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, do not show how the land covered by TCT No. 140 supposedly in the name of Florencio Mora was registered. A land may be considered as not having been originally registered if there is no decree number, original certificate of title number or LRC Record.
Barstowe Philippines Corporation vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148) Judicially reconstituted titles are superior to administratively reconstituted titles.
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof" unless the reconstitution was made extrajudicially. In contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which is in rem, the administrative reconstitution is essentially ex-parte and without notice. The reconstituted certificates of title do not share the same indefeasible character of the original certificates of title for the following reason —
The nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate Of Title of registered land is similar to that of a second Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate Of Title. Both are issued, after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that the original of the said TCT or the original of the Owner's Duplicate TCT, respectively, was lost and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted for that purpose. Both, therefore, are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A cursory examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put on notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra-careful. .
REVERSION BY THE GOVERNMENT
Hrs. of Venturanza vs. Republic (528 SCRA 238) The Government can file reversion proceedings to recover inalienable lands of public domain even if in hands of innocent purchasers for value.
It is, thus, safe to conclude that the land subject of TCT No. 2574 could not have been registered in the name of petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest for the simple reason that under the Constitution, timberlands, which are part of the public domain, cannot be alienated. A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void and can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found. Thus, we have ruled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on non-disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Action for reversion which seeks to cancel a judgment of the RTC awarding lot to an applicant should be filed before Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
While CA No. 141 did not specify whether judicial confirmation of titles by a land registration court can be subject of a reversion suit, the government availed of such remedy by filing actions with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel titles and decrees granted in land registration applications, but the situation changed on 14 August 1981 upon the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which gave the Intermediate Appellate Court the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts. When the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure became effective on 1 July 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts. Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of public land instituted by the Government was already covered by Rule 47 and the same should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 88; December 5, 1917
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
MANILA, December 5, 1917
EXECUTIVE ORDER }
No. 88 }
WHEREAS, many of the inhabitants of the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, municipality of Alburquerque, and the barrios of Badiang and Bahay-bahay, municipality of Balilihan, have petitioned that said barrios be separated from the municipalities of Alburquerque and Balilihan, Province of Bohol, and organized into an independent municipality;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of section sixty-eight of the Revised Administrative Code, the thirty-four municipalities of the Province of Bohol as established by section thirty-eight of the said Administrative Code, are hereby increased to thirty-five by separating the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, from the municipality of Alburquerque, and the barrios of Badiang and Bahaybahay, from the municipality of Balilihan, Province of Bohol, and organizing the same into an independent municipality, under the name of “Sikatuna.”
The municipality of Alburquerque shall consist of its present municipality less the territory comprised in the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, and the municipality of Balilihan, shall consist of its present municipality less the territory comprised in the barrios of Badiang and Bahaybahay. The municipality of Sikatuna shall consist of the territory comprised in the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, Cambuac, Badiang, and Bahaybahay.
The seat of the municipal government of Sikatuna shall be in the barrio of Cornago.
The organization herein made shall take effect on January first, nineteen hundred and eighteen.
(Sgd) FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON
Governor-General
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
MANILA, December 5, 1917
EXECUTIVE ORDER }
No. 88 }
WHEREAS, many of the inhabitants of the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, municipality of Alburquerque, and the barrios of Badiang and Bahay-bahay, municipality of Balilihan, have petitioned that said barrios be separated from the municipalities of Alburquerque and Balilihan, Province of Bohol, and organized into an independent municipality;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of section sixty-eight of the Revised Administrative Code, the thirty-four municipalities of the Province of Bohol as established by section thirty-eight of the said Administrative Code, are hereby increased to thirty-five by separating the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, from the municipality of Alburquerque, and the barrios of Badiang and Bahaybahay, from the municipality of Balilihan, Province of Bohol, and organizing the same into an independent municipality, under the name of “Sikatuna.”
The municipality of Alburquerque shall consist of its present municipality less the territory comprised in the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, and Cambuac, and the municipality of Balilihan, shall consist of its present municipality less the territory comprised in the barrios of Badiang and Bahaybahay. The municipality of Sikatuna shall consist of the territory comprised in the barrios of Cornago, Abucay, Libjo, Canagong, Cambuac, Badiang, and Bahaybahay.
The seat of the municipal government of Sikatuna shall be in the barrio of Cornago.
The organization herein made shall take effect on January first, nineteen hundred and eighteen.
(Sgd) FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON
Governor-General
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
De Castro vs Judicial and Bar Council, et al.
Promulgated:
March 17, 2010
x------------
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Even before the event actually happens, it is giving rise to many legal dilemmas. May the incumbent President appoint his successor, considering that Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department) of the Constitution prohibits the President or Acting President from making appointments within two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety? What is the relevance of Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department) of the Constitution, which provides that any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof, to the matter of the appointment of his successor? May the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) resume the process of screening the candidates nominated or being considered to succeed Chief Justice Puno, and submit the list of nominees to the incumbent President even during the period of the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII? Does mandamus lie to compel the submission of the shortlist of nominees by the JBC?
Precís of the Consolidated Cases
Petitioners Arturo M. De Castro and John G. Peralta respectively commenced G.R. No. 191002[1] and G.R. No. 191149[2] as special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus, praying that the JBC be compelled to submit to the incumbent President the list of at least three nominees for the position of the next Chief Justice.
In G.R. No. 191032,[3] Jaime N. Soriano, via his petition for prohibition, proposes to prevent the JBC from conducting its search, selection and nomination proceedings for the position of Chief Justice.
In G.R. No. 191057, a special civil action for mandamus,[4] the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) wants the JBC to submit its list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, because the incumbent President is not covered by the prohibition that applies only to appointments in the Executive Department.
In Administrative Matter No. 10-2-5-SC,[5] petitioner Estelito M. Mendoza, a former Solicitor General, seeks a ruling from the Court for the guidance of the JBC on whether Section 15, Article VII applies to appointments to the Judiciary.
In G.R. No. 191342,[6] which the Court consolidated on March 9, 2010 with the petitions earlier filed, petitioners Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr. and Roland B. Inting, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governors for Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas, respectively, want to enjoin and restrain the JBC from submitting a list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice to the President for appointment during the period provided for in Section 15, Article VII.
All the petitions now before the Court pose as the principal legal question whether the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement. That question is undoubtedly impressed with transcendental importance to the Nation, because the appointment of the Chief Justice is any President’s most important appointment.
A precedent frequently cited is In Re Appointments Dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively (Valenzuela),[7] by which the Court held that Section 15, Article VII prohibited the exercise by the President of the power to appoint to judicial positions during the period therein fixed.
In G.R. No. 191002, De Castro submits that the conflicting opinions on the issue expressed by legal luminaries – one side holds that the incumbent President is prohibited from making appointments within two months immediately before the coming presidential elections and until the end of her term of office as President on June 30, 2010, while the other insists that the prohibition applies only to appointments to executive positions that may influence the election and, anyway, paramount national interest justifies the appointment of a Chief Justice during the election ban – has impelled the JBC to defer the decision to whom to send its list of at least three nominees, whether to the incumbent President or to her successor.[8] He opines that the JBC is thereby arrogating unto itself “the judicial function that is not conferred upon it by the Constitution,” which has limited it to the task of recommending appointees to the Judiciary, but has not empowered it to “finally resolve constitutional questions, which is the power vested only in the Supreme Court under the Constitution.” As such, he contends that the JBC acted with grave abuse of discretion in deferring the submission of the list of nominees to the President; and that a “final and definitive resolution of the constitutional questions raised above would diffuse (sic) the tension in the legal community that would go a long way to keep and maintain stability in the judiciary and the political system.”[9]
In G.R. No. 191032, Soriano offers the view that the JBC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction when it resolved unanimously on January 18, 2010 to open the search, nomination, and selection process for the position of Chief Justice to succeed Chief Justice Puno, because the appointing authority for the position of Chief Justice is the Supreme Court itself, the President’s authority being limited to the appointment of the Members of the Supreme Court. Hence, the JBC should not intervene in the process, unless a nominee is not yet a Member of the Supreme Court.[10]
For its part, PHILCONSA observes in its petition in G.R. No. 191057 that “unorthodox and exceptional circumstances spawned by the discordant interpretations, due perhaps to a perfunctory understanding, of Sec. 15, Art. VII in relation to Secs. 4(1), 8(5) and 9, Art. VIII of the Constitution” have bred “a frenzied inflammatory legal debate on the constitutional provisions mentioned that has divided the bench and the bar and the general public as well, because of its dimensional impact to the nation and the people,” thereby fashioning “transcendental questions or issues affecting the JBC’s proper exercise of its “principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary” by submitting only to the President (not to the next President) “a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy” from which the members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts may be appointed.”[11] PHILCONSA further believes and submits that now is the time to revisit and review Valenzuela, the “strange and exotic Decision of the Court en banc.”[12]
Peralta states in his petition in G.R. No. 191149 that mandamus can compel the JBC “to immediately transmit to the President, within a reasonable time, its nomination list for the position of chief justice upon the mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in compliance with its mandated duty under the Constitution” in the event that the Court resolves that the President can appoint a Chief Justice even during the election ban under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.[13]
The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 insist that there is an actual controversy, considering that the “JBC has initiated the process of receiving applications for the position of Chief Justice and has in fact begun the evaluation process for the applications to the position,” and “is perilously near completing the nomination process and coming up with a list of nominees for submission to the President, entering into the period of the ban on midnight appointments on March 10, 2010,” which “only highlights the pressing and compelling need for a writ of prohibition to enjoin such alleged ministerial function of submitting the list, especially if it will be cone within the period of the ban on midnight appointments.”[14]
Antecedents
These cases trace their genesis to the controversy that has arisen from the forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17, 2010, or seven days after the presidential election. Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”
On December 22, 2009, Congressman Matias V. Defensor, an ex officio member of the JBC, addressed a letter to the JBC, requesting that the process for nominations to the office of the Chief Justice be commenced immediately.
In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, therefore, the JBC passed a resolution,[15] which reads:
The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice Honorable Reynato S. Puno.
It will publish the opening of the position for applications or recommendations; deliberate on the list of candidates; publish the names of candidates; accept comments on or opposition to the applications; conduct public interviews of candidates; and prepare the shortlist of candidates.
As to the time to submit this shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in the light of the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, the JBC welcomes and will consider all views on the matter.
18 January 2010.
(sgd.)
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court &
Ex-Officio Secretary
Judicial and Bar Council
As a result, the JBC opened the position of Chief Justice for application or recommendation, and published for that purpose its announcement dated January 20, 2010,[16] viz:
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) announces the opening for application or recommendation, of the position of CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, which will be vacated on 17 May 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, HON. REYNATO S. PUNO.
Applications or recommendations for this position must be submitted not later than 4 February 2010 (Thursday) to the JBC Secretariat xxx:
The announcement was published on January 20, 2010 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star.[17]
Conformably with its existing practice, the JBC “automatically considered” for the position of Chief Justice the five most senior of the Associate Justices of the Court, namely: Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. However, the last two declined their nomination through letters dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively.[18]
Others either applied or were nominated. Victor Fernandez, the retired Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, applied, but later formally withdrew his name from consideration through his letter dated February 8, 2010. Candidates who accepted their nominations without conditions were Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion; and Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval (Sandiganbayan). Candidates who accepted their nominations with conditions were Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.[19] Declining their nominations were Atty. Henry Villarica (via telephone conversation with the Executive Officer of the JBC on February 5, 2010) and Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr. (via telephone conversation with the Executive Officer of the JBC on February 8, 2010).[20]
The JBC excluded from consideration former RTC Judge Florentino Floro (for failure to meet the standards set by the JBC rules); and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio of the Office of the Ombudsman (due to cases pending in the Office of the Ombudsman).[21]
In its meeting of February 8, 2010, the JBC resolved to proceed to the next step of announcing the names of the following candidates to invite the public to file their sworn complaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not later than February 22, 2010, to wit: Associate Justice Carpio, Associate Justice Corona, Associate Justice Carpio Morales, Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Brion, and Associate Justice Sandoval. The announcement came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star issues of February 13, 2010.[22]
Issues
Although it has already begun the process for the filling of the position of Chief Justice Puno in accordance with its rules, the JBC is not yet decided on when to submit to the President its list of nominees for the position due to the controversy now before us being yet unresolved. In the meanwhile, time is marching in quick step towards May 17, 2010 when the vacancy occurs upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
The actions of the JBC have sparked a vigorous debate not only among legal luminaries, but also among non-legal quarters, and brought out highly disparate opinions on whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice or not. Petitioner Mendoza notes that in Valenzuela, which involved the appointments of two judges of the Regional Trial Court, the Court addressed this issue now before us as an administrative matter “to avoid any possible polemics concerning the matter,” but he opines that the polemics leading to Valenzuela “would be miniscule [sic] compared to the “polemics” that have now erupted in regard to the current controversy,” and that unless “put to a halt, and this may only be achieved by a ruling from the Court, the integrity of the process and the credibility of whoever is appointed to the position of Chief Justice, may irreparably be impaired.”[23]
Accordingly, we reframe the issues as submitted by each petitioner in the order of the chronological filing of their petitions.
G.R. No. 191002
a. Does the JBC have the power and authority to resolve the constitutional question of whether the incumbent President can appoint a Chief Justice during the election ban period?
b. Does the incumbent President have the power and authority to appoint during the election ban the successor of Chief Justice Puno when he vacates the position of Chief Justice on his retirement on May 17, 2010?
G.R. No. 191032
a. Is the power to appoint the Chief Justice vested in the Supreme Court en banc?
G.R. No. 191057
a. Is the constitutional prohibition against appointment under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution applicable only to positions in the Executive Department?
b. Assuming that the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution also applies to members of the Judiciary, may such appointments be excepted because they are impressed with public interest or are demanded by the exigencies of public service, thereby justifying these appointments during the period of prohibition?
c. Does the JBC have the authority to decide whether or not to include and submit the names of nominees who manifested interest to be nominated for the position of Chief Justice on the understanding that his/her nomination will be submitted to the next President in view of the prohibition against presidential appointments from March 11, 2010 until June 30, 2010?
A. M. No. 10-2-5-SC
a. Does Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution apply to appointments to positions in the Judiciary under Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution?
b. May President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo make appointments to the Judiciary after March 10, 2010, including that for the position of Chief Justice after Chief Justice Puno retires on May 17, 2010?
G.R. No. 191149
a. Does the JBC have the discretion to withhold the submission of the short list to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?
G.R. No. 191342
a. Does the JBC have the authority to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent President without committing a grave violation of the Constitution and jurisprudence prohibiting the incumbent President from making midnight appointments two months immediately preceding the next presidential elections until the end of her term?
b. Is any act performed by the JBC, including the vetting of the candidates for the position of Chief Justice, constitutionally invalid in view of the JBC’s illegal composition allowing each member from the Senate and the House of Representatives to have one vote each?
On February 16, 2010, the Court directed the JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the consolidated petitions, except that filed in G.R. No. 191342.
On February 26, 2010, the JBC submitted its comment, reporting therein that the next stage of the process for the selection of the nominees for the position of Chief Justice would be the public interview of the candidates and the preparation of the short list of candidates, “including the interview of the constitutional experts, as may be needed.”[24] It stated:[25]
Likewise, the JBC has yet to take a position on when to submit the shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in light of Section 4 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within ninety (90) days from the occurrence thereof, Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution concerning the ban on Presidential appointments “two (2) months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term” and Section 261 (g), Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines.
12. Since the Honorable Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, the JBC will be guided by its decision in these consolidated Petitions and Administrative Matter.
On February 26, 2010, the OSG also submitted its comment, essentially stating that the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement by May 17, 2010.
The OSG insists that: (a) a writ of prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its principal function under the Constitution to recommend appointees in the Judiciary; (b) the JBC’s function to recommend is a “continuing process,” which does not begin with each vacancy or end with each nomination, because the goal is “to submit the list of nominees to Malacañang on the very day the vacancy arises”;[26] the JBC was thus acting within its jurisdiction when it commenced and set in motion the process of selecting the nominees to be submitted to the President for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno;[27] (c) petitioner Soriano’s theory that it is the Supreme Court, not the President, who has the power to appoint the Chief Justice, is incorrect, and proceeds from his misinterpretation of the phrase “members of the Supreme Court” found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution as referring only to the Associate Justices, to the exclusion of the Chief Justice; [28] (d) a writ of mandamus can issue to compel the JBC to submit the list of nominees to the President, considering that its duty to prepare the list of at least three nominees is unqualified, and the submission of the list is a ministerial act that the JBC is mandated to perform under the Constitution; as such, the JBC, the nature of whose principal function is executive, is not vested with the power to resolve who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice and, therefore, has no discretion to withhold the list from the President; [29] and (e) a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the JBC to include or exclude particular candidates as nominees, considering that there is no imperative duty on its part to include in or exclude from the list particular individuals, but, on the contrary, the JBC’s determination of who it nominates to the President is an exercise of a discretionary duty.[30]
The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint the next Chief Justice, because the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments in the Supreme Court. It argues that any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from its occurrence, pursuant to Section 4(1), Article VIII of the Constitution; [31] that in their deliberations on the mandatory period for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, the framers neither mentioned nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments, or its effects on such period, or vice versa;[32] that had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme Court appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so in the Constitution, which explains why the prohibition found in Article VII (Executive Department) was not written in Article VIII (Judicial Department); and that the framers also incorporated in Article VIII ample restrictions or limitations on the President’s power to appoint members of the Supreme Court to ensure its independence from “political vicissitudes” and its “insulation from political pressures,”[33] such as stringent qualifications for the positions, the establishment of the JBC, the specified period within which the President shall appoint a Supreme Court Justice.
The OSG posits that although Valenzuela involved the appointment of RTC Judges, the situation now refers to the appointment of the next Chief Justice to which the prohibition does not apply; that, at any rate, Valenzuela even recognized that there might be “the imperative need for an appointment during the period of the ban,” like when the membership of the Supreme Court should be “so reduced that it will have no quorum, or should the voting on a particular important question requiring expeditious resolution be divided”;[34] and that Valenzuela also recognized that the filling of vacancies in the Judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, most especially if there is any compelling reason to justify the making of the appointments during the period of the prohibition.[35]
Lastly, the OSG urges that there are now undeniably compelling reasons for the incumbent President to appoint the next Chief Justice, to wit: (a) a deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues is “quite expected”;[36] (b) the Court acts as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), which, sitting en banc, is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice President and, as such, has “the power to correct manifest errors on the statement of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass (COC)”;[37] (c) if history has shown that during ordinary times the Chief Justice was appointed immediately upon the occurrence of the vacancy, from the time of the effectivity of the Constitution, there is now even more reason to appoint the next Chief Justice immediately upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno;[38] and (d) should the next Chief Justice come from among the incumbent Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, thereby causing a vacancy, it also becomes incumbent upon the JBC to start the selection process for the filling up of the vacancy in accordance with the constitutional mandate.[39]
On March 9, 2010, the Court admitted the following comments/oppositions-in-intervention, to wit:
(a) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. Peter Irving Corvera (Corvera);[40]
(b) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. Christian Robert S. Lim (Lim);
(c) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 23, 2010 of Atty. Alfonso V. Tan, Jr. (Tan);
(d) The comment/opposition-in-intervention dated March 1, 2010 of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL);
(e) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 25, 2010 of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano (Ubano);
(f) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 25, 2010 of Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Davao del Sur Chapter and its Immediate Past President, Atty. Israelito P. Torreon (IBP- Davao del Sur);
(g) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 26, 2010 of Atty. Mitchell John L. Boiser (Boiser);
(h)The consolidated comment/opposition-in-intervention dated February 26, 2010 of BAYAN Chairman Dr. Carolina P. Araullo; BAYAN Secretary General Renato M. Reyes, Jr.; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) Chairman Ferdinand Gaite; Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY) Secretary General Gloria Arellano; Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Kabataan ng Samayanan Para sa Kaunlaran (ANAKBAYAN) Chairman Ken Leonard Ramos; Tayo ang Pag-asa Convenor Alvin Peters; League of Filipino Students (LFS) Chairman James Mark Terry Lacuanan Ridon; National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) Chairman Einstein Recedes, College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) Chairman Vijae Alquisola; and Student Christian Movement of the Philippines (SCMP) Chairman Ma. Cristina Angela Guevarra (BAYAN et al.);
(i) The opposition-in-intervention dated March 3, 2010 of Walden F. Bello and Loretta Ann P. Rosales (Bello et al.); and
(j) The consolidated comment/opposition-in-intervention dated March 4, 2010 of the Women Trial Lawyers Organization of the Philippines (WTLOP), represented by Atty. Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana; Atty. Belleza Alojado Demaisip; Atty. Teresita Gandionco-Oledan; Atty. Ma. Verena Kasilag-Villanueva; Atty. Marilyn Sta. Romana; Atty. Leonila de Jesus; and Atty. Guinevere de Leon (WTLOP).
Intervenors Tan, WTLOP, BAYAN et al., Corvera, IBP Davao del Sur, and NUPL take the position that De Castro’s petition was bereft of any basis, because under Section 15, Article VII, the outgoing President is constitutionally banned from making any appointments from March 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010, including the appointment of the successor of Chief Justice Puno. Hence, mandamus does not lie to compel the JBC to submit the list of nominees to the outgoing President if the constitutional prohibition is already in effect. Tan adds that the prohibition against midnight appointments was applied by the Court to the appointments to the Judiciary made by then President Ramos, with the Court holding that the duty of the President to fill the vacancies within 90 days from occurrence of the vacancies (for the Supreme Court) or from the submission of the list (for all other courts) was not an excuse to violate the constitutional prohibition.
Intervenors Tan, Ubano, Boiser, Corvera, NULP, BAYAN et al., and Bello et al. oppose the insistence that Valenzuela recognizes the possibility that the President may appoint the next Chief Justice if exigent circumstances warrant the appointment, because that recognition is obiter dictum; and aver that the absence of a Chief Justice or even an Associate Justice does not cause epic damage or absolute disruption or paralysis in the operations of the Judiciary. They insist that even without the successor of Chief Justice Puno being appointed by the incumbent President, the Court is allowed to sit and adjudge en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members at its discretion; that a full membership of the Court is not necessary; that petitioner De Castro’s fears are unfounded and baseless, being based on a mere possibility, the occurrence of which is entirely unsure; that it is not in the national interest to have a Chief Justice whose appointment is unconstitutional and, therefore, void; and that such a situation will create a crisis in the judicial system and will worsen an already vulnerable political situation.
ice is imperative for the stability of the judicial system and the political situation in the country when the election-related questions reach the Court as false, because there is an existing law on filling the void brought about by a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice; that the law is Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, which has not been repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or any other law; that a temporary or an acting Chief Justice is not anathema to judicial independence; that the designation of an acting Chief Justice is not only provided for by law, but is also dictated by practical necessity; that the practice was intended to be enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, but the Commissioners decided not to write it in the Constitution on account of the settled practice; that the practice was followed under the 1987 Constitution, when, in 1992, at the end of the term of Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, Associate Justice Andres Narvasa assumed the position as Acting Chief Justice prior to his official appointment as Chief Justice; that said filling up of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice was acknowledged and even used by analogy in the case of the vacancy of the Chairman of the Commission on Elections, per Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358; and that the history of the Supreme Court has shown that this rule of succession has been repeatedly observed and has become a part of its tradition.
Intervenors Ubano, Boiser, NUPL, Corvera, and Lim maintain that the Omnibus Election Code penalizes as an election offense the act of any government official who appoints, promotes, or gives any increase in salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or employee during the period of 45 days before a regular election; that the provision covers all appointing heads, officials, and officers of a government office, agency or instrumentality, including the President; that for the incumbent President to appoint the next Chief Justice upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno, or during the period of the ban under the Omnibus Election Code, constitutes an election offense; that even an appointment of the next Chief Justice prior to the election ban is fundamentally invalid and without effect because there can be no appointment until a vacancy occurs; and that the vacancy for the position can occur only by May 17, 2010.
Intervenor Boiser adds that De Castro’s prayer to compel the submission of nominees by the JBC to the incumbent President is off-tangent because the position of Chief Justice is still not vacant; that to speak of a list, much more a submission of such list, before a vacancy occurs is glaringly premature; that the proposed advance appointment by the incumbent President of the next Chief Justice will be unconstitutional; and that no list of nominees can be submitted by the JBC if there is no vacancy.
All the intervenors-oppositors submit that Section 15, Article VII makes no distinction between the kinds of appointments made by the President; and that the Court, in Valenzuela, ruled that the appointments by the President of the two judges during the prohibition period were void.
Intervenor WTLOP posits that Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not apply only to the appointments in the Executive Department, but also to judicial appointments, contrary to the submission of PHILCONSA; that Section 15 does not distinguish; and that Valenzuela already interpreted the prohibition as applicable to judicial appointments.
Intervenor WTLOP further posits that petitioner Soriano’s contention that the power to appoint the Chief Justice is vested, not in the President, but in the Supreme Court, is utterly baseless, because the Chief Justice is also a Member of the Supreme Court as contemplated under Section 9, Article VIII; and that, at any rate, the term “members” was interpreted in Vargas v. Rillaroza (G.R. No. L-1612, February 26, 1948) to refer to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; that PHILCONSA’s prayer that the Court pass a resolution declaring that persons who manifest their interest as nominees, but with conditions, shall not be considered nominees by the JBC is diametrically opposed to the arguments in the body of its petition; that such glaring inconsistency between the allegations in the body and the relief prayed for highlights the lack of merit of PHILCONSA’s petition; that the role of the JBC cannot be separated from the constitutional prohibition on the President; and that the Court must direct the JBC to follow the rule of law, that is, to submit the list of nominees only to the next duly elected President after the period of the constitutional ban against midnight appointments has expired.
Oppositor IBP Davao del Sur opines that the JBC – because it is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial body – has no duty under the Constitution to resolve the question of whether the incumbent President can appoint a Chief Justice during the period of prohibition; that even if the JBC has already come up with a short list, it still has to bow to the strict limitations under Section 15, Article VII; that should the JBC defer submission of the list, it is not arrogating unto itself a judicial function, but simply respecting the clear mandate of the Constitution; and that the application of the general rule in Section 15, Article VII to the Judiciary does not violate the principle of separation of powers, because said provision is an exception.
Oppositors NUPL, Corvera, Lim and BAYAN et al. state that the JBC’s act of nominating appointees to the Supreme Court is purely ministerial and does not involve the exercise of judgment; that there can be no default on the part of the JBC in submitting the list of nominees to the President, considering that the call for applications only begins from the occurrence of the vacancy in the Supreme Court; and that the commencement of the process of screening of applicants to fill the vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice only begins from the retirement on May 17, 2010, for, prior to this date, there is no definite legal basis for any party to claim that the submission or non-submission of the list of nominees to the President by the JBC is a matter of right under law.
The main question presented in all the filings herein – because it involves two seemingly conflicting provisions of the Constitution – imperatively demands the attention and resolution of this Court, the only authority that can resolve the question definitively and finally. The imperative demand rests on the ever-present need, first, to safeguard the independence, reputation, and integrity of the entire Judiciary, particularly this Court, an institution that has been unnecessarily dragged into the harsh polemics brought on by the controversy; second, to settle once and for all the doubt about an outgoing President’s power to appoint to the Judiciary within the long period starting two months before the presidential elections until the end of the presidential term; and third, to set a definite guideline for the JBC to follow in the discharge of its primary office of screening and nominating qualified persons for appointment to the Judiciary.
Thus, we resolve.
Ruling of the Court
Locus Standi of Petitioners
The preliminary issue to be settled is whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.
Black defines locus standi as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”[41] In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[42]
The question on legal standing is whether such parties have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”[43] Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.[44]
It is true that as early as in 1937, in People v. Vera,[45] the Court adopted the direct injury test for determining whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi. There, the Court held that the person who would assail the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.” Vera was followed in Custodio v. President of the Senate,[46] Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Association v. De la Fuente,[47] Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix,[48] and Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works.[49]
Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement of locus standi, being a mere procedural technicality, can be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. For instance, in 1949, in Araneta v. Dinglasan,[50] the Court liberalized the approach when the cases had “transcendental importance.” Some notable controversies whose petitioners did not pass the direct injury test were allowed to be treated in the same way as in Araneta v. Dinglasan.[51]
In the 1975 decision in Aquino v. Commission on Elections,[52] this Court decided to resolve the issues raised by the petition due to their “far-reaching implications,” even if the petitioner had no personality to file the suit. The liberal approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been adopted in several notable cases, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic
organizations to bring their suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.[53]
However, the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or legislative action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public in general. Although such petitioner may not be as adversely affected by the action complained against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a public right.
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not surprising, for even if the issue may appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[54] the Court aptly explains why:
Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both “citizen” and “taxpayer” standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk,[55] where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins:[56] “In matter of mere public right, however…the people are the real parties…It is at least the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied.” With respect to taxpayer’s suits, Terr v. Jordan[57] held that “the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied.”[58]
Petitioners De Castro (G.R. No. 191002), Soriano (G.R. No. 191032) and Peralta (G.R. No. 191149) all assert their right as citizens filing their petitions on behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issue of the appointment of the next Chief Justice. De Castro and Soriano further claim standing as taxpayers, with Soriano averring that he is affected by the continuing proceedings in the JBC, which involve “unnecessary, if not, illegal disbursement of public funds.”[59]
PHILCONSA alleges itself to be a non-stock, non-profit organization existing under the law for the purpose of defending, protecting, and preserving the Constitution and promoting its growth and flowering. It also alleges that the Court has recognized its legal standing to file cases on constitutional issues in several cases.[60]
In A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, Mendoza states that he is a citizen of the Philippines, a member of the Philippine Bar engaged in the active practice of law, and a former Solicitor General, former Minister of Justice, former Member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa and the Regular Batasang Pambansa, and former member of the Faculty of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines.
The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 are the Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas. They allege that they have the legal standing to enjoin the submission of the list of nominees by the JBC to the President, for “[a]n adjudication of the proper interpretation and application of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments with regard to respondent JBC’s function in submitting the list of nominees is well within the concern of petitioners, who are duty bound to ensure that obedience and respect for the Constitution is upheld, most especially by government offices, such as respondent JBC, who are specifically tasked to perform crucial functions in the whole scheme of our democratic institution.” They further allege that, reposed in them as members of the Bar, is a clear legal interest in the process of selecting the members of the Supreme Court, and in the selection of the Chief Justice, considering that the person appointed becomes a member of the body that has constitutional supervision and authority over them and other members of the legal profession.[61]
The Court rules that the petitioners have each demonstrated adequate interest in the outcome of the controversy as to vest them with the requisite locus standi. The issues before us are of transcendental importance to the people as a whole, and to the petitioners in particular. Indeed, the issues affect everyone (including the petitioners), regardless of one’s personal interest in life, because they concern that great doubt about the authority of the incumbent President to appoint not only the successor of the retiring incumbent Chief Justice, but also others who may serve in the Judiciary, which already suffers from a far too great number of vacancies in the ranks of trial judges throughout the country.
In any event, the Court retains the broad discretion to waive the requirement of legal standing in favor of any petitioner when the matter involved has transcendental importance, or otherwise requires a liberalization of the requirement.[62]
Yet, if any doubt still lingers about the locus standi of any petitioner, we dispel the doubt now in order to remove any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue squarely presented herein. We are not to shirk from discharging our solemn duty by reason alone of an obstacle more technical than otherwise. In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[63] we pointed out: “Standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest.” But even if, strictly speaking, the petitioners “are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.”[64]
Justiciability
Intervenor NUPL maintains that there is no actual case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for adjudication, considering that although the selection process commenced by the JBC is going on, there is yet no final list of nominees; hence, there is no imminent controversy as to whether such list must be submitted to the incumbent President, or reserved for submission to the incoming President.
Intervenor Tan raises the lack of any actual justiciable controversy that is ripe for judicial determination, pointing out that petitioner De Castro has not even shown that the JBC has already completed its selection process and is now ready to submit the list to the incumbent President; and that petitioner De Castro is merely presenting a hypothetical scenario that is clearly not sufficient for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.
Intervenors Corvera and Lim separately opine that De Castro’s petition rests on an overbroad and vague allegation of political tension, which is insufficient basis for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.
Intervenor BAYAN et al. contend that the petitioners are seeking a mere advisory opinion on what the JBC and the President should do, and are not invoking any issues that are justiciable in nature.
Intervenors Bello et al. submit that there exist no conflict of legal rights and no assertion of opposite legal claims in any of the petitions; that PHILCONSA does not allege any action taken by the JBC, but simply avers that the conditional manifestations of two Members of the Court, accented by the divided opinions and interpretations of legal experts, or associations of lawyers and law students on the issues published in the daily newspapers are “matters of paramount and transcendental importance to the bench, bar and general public”; that PHILCONSA fails not only to cite any legal duty or allege any failure to perform the duty, but also to indicate what specific action should be done by the JBC; that Mendoza does not even attempt to portray the matter as a controversy or conflict of rights, but, instead, prays that the Court should “rule for the guidance of” the JBC; that the fact that the Court supervises the JBC does not automatically imply that the Court can rule on the issues presented in the Mendoza petition, because supervision involves oversight, which means that the subordinate officer or body must first act, and if such action is not in accordance with prescribed rules, then, and only then, may the person exercising oversight order the action to be redone to conform to the prescribed rules; that the Mendoza petition does not allege that the JBC has performed a specific act susceptible to correction for being illegal or unconstitutional; and that the Mendoza petition asks the Court to issue an advisory ruling, not to exercise its power of supervision to correct a wrong act by the JBC, but to declare the state of the law in the absence of an actual case or controversy.
We hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. The reality is that the JBC already commenced the proceedings for the selection of the nominees to be included in a short list to be submitted to the President for consideration of which of them will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the next Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet vacant, the fact that the JBC began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has yet to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial determination, because the next steps are the public interview of the candidates, the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the “interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed.”
A part of the question to be reviewed by the Court is whether the JBC properly initiated the process, there being an insistence from some of the oppositors-intervenors that the JBC could only do so once the vacancy has occurred (that is, after May 17, 2010). Another part is, of course, whether the JBC may resume its process until the short list is prepared, in view of the provision of Section 4(1), Article VIII, which unqualifiedly requires the President to appoint one from the short list to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court (be it the Chief Justice or an Associate Justice) within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
The ripeness of the controversy for judicial determination may not be doubted. The challenges to the authority of the JBC to open the process of nomination and to continue the process until the submission of the list of nominees; the insistence of some of the petitioners to compel the JBC through mandamus to submit the short list to the incumbent President; the counter-insistence of the intervenors to prohibit the JBC from submitting the short list to the incumbent President on the ground that said list should be submitted instead to the next President; the strong position that the incumbent President is already prohibited under Section 15, Article VII from making any appointments, including those to the Judiciary, starting on May 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010; and the contrary position that the incumbent President is not so prohibited are only some of the real issues for determination. All such issues establish the ripeness of the controversy, considering that for some the short list must be submitted before the vacancy actually occurs by May 17, 2010. The outcome will not be an abstraction, or a merely hypothetical exercise. The resolution of the controversy will surely settle – with finality – the nagging questions that are preventing the JBC from moving on with the process that it already began, or that are reasons persuading the JBC to desist from the rest of the process.
We need not await the occurrence of the vacancy by May 17, 2010 in order for the principal issue to ripe for judicial determination by the Court. It is enough that one alleges conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but seemingly proscribed by the Constitution. A reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the Court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.[65] Herein, the facts are not in doubt, for only legal issues remain.
Substantive Merits
I
Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply
to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court
or to other appointments to the Judiciary
Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in conflict.
The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department), provides:
Section 15. 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.
The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department), states:
Section 4. (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
In the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, with the exception of Soriano, Tolentino and Inting, submit that the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, on the ground that the prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not extend to appointments in the Judiciary.
The Court agrees with the submission.
First. The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to meticulously drafting, styling, and arranging the Constitution. Such meticulousness indicates that the organization and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done by the framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the Constitution should contain.
The Constitution consists of 18 Articles, three of which embody the allocation of the awesome powers of government among the three great departments, the Legislative (Article VI), the Executive (Article VII), and the Judicial Departments (Article VIII). The arrangement was a true recognition of the principle of separation of powers that underlies the political structure, as Constitutional Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna (later a worthy member of the Court) explained in his sponsorship speech:
We have in the political part of this Constitution opted for the separation of powers in government because we believe that the only way to protect freedom and liberty is to separate and divide the awesome powers of government. Hence, we return to the separation of powers doctrine and the legislative, executive and judicial departments.[66]
As can be seen, Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the powers vested by the Constitution in the President. The presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article.
Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court, among others. Section 4(1) and Section 9 of this Article are the provisions specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the submission of a list of at least three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article mandates the President to fill the vacancy within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Although Valenzuela[67] came to hold that the prohibition covered even judicial appointments, it cannot be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not firmly rest on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Thereby, the confirmation made to the JBC by then Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado of this Court, a former member of the Constitutional Commission, about the prohibition not being intended to apply to the appointments to the Judiciary, which confirmation Valenzuela even expressly mentioned, should prevail.
Relevantly, Valenzuela adverted to the intent of the framers in the genesis of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, viz:
V . Intent of the Constitutional Commission
The journal of the Commission which drew up the present Constitution discloses that the original proposal was to have an eleven-member Supreme Court. Commissioner Eulogio Lerum wanted to increase the number of Justices to fifteen. He also wished to ensure that that number would not be reduced for any appreciable length of time (even only temporarily), and to this end proposed that any vacancy “must be filled within two months from the date that the vacancy occurs.” His proposal to have a 15-member Court was not initially adopted. Persisting however in his desire to make certain that the size of the Court would not be decreased for any substantial period as a result of vacancies, Lerum proposed the insertion in the provision (anent the Court’s membership) of the same mandate that “IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM OCCURRENCE THEREOF.” He later agreed to suggestions to make the period three, instead of two, months. As thus amended, the proposal was approved. As it turned out, however, the Commission ultimately agreed on a fifteen-member Court. Thus it was that the section fixing the composition of the Supreme Court came to include a command to fill up any vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence.
In this connection, it may be pointed out that that instruction that any “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days” (in the last sentence of Section 4 (1) of Article VIII) contrasts with the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, which is couched in stronger negative language - that “a President or Acting President shall not make appointments…”
The commission later approved a proposal of Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) to add to what is now Section 9 of Article VIII, the following paragraph: “WITH RESPECT TO LOWER COURTS, THE PRESIDENT SHALL ISSUE THE APPOINTMENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LIST” (of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council to the President). Davide stated that his purpose was to provide a “uniform rule” for lower courts. According to him, the 90-day period should be counted from submission of the list of nominees to the President in view of the possibility that the President might reject the list submitted to him and the JBC thus need more time to submit a new one.
On the other hand, Section 15, Article VII - which in effect deprives the President of his appointing power “two months immediately before the next presidential elections up to the end of his term” - was approved without discussion.[68]
However, the reference to the records of the Constitutional Commission did not advance or support the result in Valenzuela. Far to the contrary, the records disclosed the express intent of the framers to enshrine in the Constitution, upon the initiative of Commissioner Eulogio Lerum, “a command [to the President] to fill up any vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence,” which even Valenzuela conceded.[69] The exchanges during deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on October 8, 1986 further show that the filling of a vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90-day period was a true mandate for the President, viz:
MR. DE CASTRO. I understand that our justices now in the Supreme Court, together with the Chief Justice, are only 11.
MR. CONCEPCION. Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. And the second sentence of this subsection reads: “Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
MR. CONCEPCION. That is right.
MR. DE CASTRO. Is this now a mandate to the executive to fill the vacancy?
MR. CONCEPCION. That is right. That is borne out of the fact that in the past 30 years, seldom has the Court had a complete complement.[70]
Moreover, the usage in Section 4(1), Article VIII of the word shall – an imperative, operating to impose a duty that may be enforced[71] – should not be disregarded. Thereby, Sections 4(1) imposes on the President the imperative duty to make an appointment of a Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. The failure by the President to do so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution.
The 90-day limitation fixed in Section 4(1), Article VIII for the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court was undoubtedly a special provision to establish a definite mandate for the President as the appointing power, and cannot be defeated by mere judicial interpretation in Valenzuela to the effect that Section 15, Article VII prevailed because it was “couched in stronger negative language.” Such interpretation even turned out to be conjectural, in light of the records of the Constitutional Commission’s deliberations on Section 4 (1), Article VIII.
How Valenzuela justified its pronouncement and result is hardly warranted. According to an authority on statutory construction:[72]
xxx the court should seek to avoid any conflict in the provisions of the statute by endeavoring to harmonize and reconcile every part so that each shall be effective. It is not easy to draft a statute, or any other writing for that matter, which may not in some manner contain conflicting provisions. But what appears to the reader to be a conflict may not have seemed so to the drafter. Undoubtedly, each provision was inserted for a definite reason. Often by considering the enactment in its entirety, what appears to be on its face a conflict may be cleared up and the provisions reconciled.
Consequently, that construction which will leave every word operative will be favored over one which leaves some word or provision meaningless because of inconsistency. But a word should not be given effect, if to do so gives the statute a meaning contrary to the intent of the legislature. On the other hand, if full effect cannot be given to the words of a statute, they must be made effective as far as possible. Nor should the provisions of a statute which are inconsistent be harmonized at a sacrifice of the legislative intention. It may be that two provisions are irreconcilable; if so, the one which expresses the intent of the law-makers should control. And the arbitrary rule has been frequently announced that where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the different provisions of a statute, the provision last in order of position will prevail, since it is the latest expression of the legislative will. Obviously, the rule is subject to deserved criticism. It is seldom applied, and probably then only where an irreconcilable conflict exists between different sections of the same act, and after all other means of ascertaining the meaning of the legislature have been exhausted. Where the conflict is between two statutes, more may be said in favor of the rule’s application, largely because of the principle of implied repeal.
In this connection, PHILCONSA’s urging of a revisit and a review of Valenzuela is timely and appropriate. Valenzuela arbitrarily ignored the express intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4 (1), Article VIII stand independently of any other provision, least of all one found in Article VII. It further ignored that the two provisions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. As judges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the framers.[73]
Consequently, prohibiting the incumbent President from appointing a Chief Justice on the premise that Section 15, Article VII extends to appointments in the Judiciary cannot be sustained. A misinterpretation like Valenzuela should not be allowed to last after its false premises have been exposed.[74] It will not do to merely distinguish Valenzuela from these cases, for the result to be reached herein is entirely incompatible with what Valenzuela decreed. Consequently, Valenzuela now deserves to be quickly sent to the dustbin of the unworthy and forgettable.
We reverse Valenzuela.
Second. Section 15, Article VII does not apply as well to all other appointments in the Judiciary.
There is no question that one of the reasons underlying the adoption of Section 15 as part of Article VII was to eliminate midnight appointments from being made by an outgoing Chief Executive in the mold of the appointments dealt with in the leading case of Aytona v. Castillo.[75] In fact, in Valenzuela, the Court so observed, stating that:
xxx it appears that Section 15, Article VII is directed against two types of appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within the two months preceding a Presidential election and are similar to those which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code, viz.:
xxx
The second type of appointments prohibited by Section 15, Article VII consists of the so-called “midnight” appointments. In Aytona v. Castillo, it was held that after the proclamation of Diosdado Macapagal as duly elected President, President Carlos P. Garcia, who was defeated in his bid for reelection, became no more than a “caretaker” administrator whose duty was to “prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President.” Said the Court:
“The filling up of vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and appointee's qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But the issuance of 350 appointments in one night and the planned induction of almost all of them in a few hours before the inauguration of the new President may, with some reason, be regarded by the latter as an abuse of Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby to deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments.”
As indicated, the Court recognized that there may well be appointments to important positions which have to be made even after the proclamation of the new President. Such appointments, so long as they are “few and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee’s qualifications,” can be made by the outgoing President. Accordingly, several appointments made by President Garcia, which were shown to have been well considered, were upheld.
Section 15, Article VII has a broader scope than the Aytona ruling. It may not unreasonably be deemed to contemplate not only “midnight” appointments – those made obviously for partisan reasons as shown by their number and the time of their making – but also appointments presumed made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the Presidential election.
On the other hand, the exception in the same Section 15 of Article VII – allowing appointments to be made during the period of the ban therein provided – is much narrower than that recognized in Aytona. The exception allows only the making of temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Obviously, the article greatly restricts the appointing power of the President during the period of the ban.
Considering the respective reasons for the time frames for filling vacancies in the courts and the restriction on the President's power of appointment, it is this Court’s view that, as a general proposition, in case of conflict, the former should yield to the latter. Surely, the prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases. Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years. Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. But prohibited appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects. They may, as earlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their making is considered an election offense.[76]
Given the background and rationale for the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, we have no doubt that the Constitutional Commission confined the prohibition to appointments made in the Executive Department. The framers did not need to extend the prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary, because their establishment of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and screening of candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would no longer be midnight appointments to the Judiciary. If midnight appointments in the mold of Aytona were made in haste and with irregularities, or made by an outgoing Chief Executive in the last days of his administration out of a desire to subvert the policies of the incoming President or for partisanship,[77] the appointments to the Judiciary made after the establishment of the JBC would not be suffering from such defects because of the JBC’s prior processing of candidates. Indeed, it is axiomatic in statutory construction that the ascertainment of the purpose of the enactment is a step in the process of ascertaining the intent or meaning of the enactment, because the reason for the enactment must necessarily shed considerable light on “the law of the statute,” i.e., the intent; hence, the enactment should be construed with reference to its intended scope and purpose, and the court should seek to carry out this purpose rather than to defeat it.[78]
Also, the intervention of the JBC eliminates the danger that appointments to the Judiciary can be made for the purpose of buying votes in a coming presidential election, or of satisfying partisan considerations. The experience from the time of the establishment of the JBC shows that even candidates for judicial positions at any level backed by people influential with the President could not always be assured of being recommended for the consideration of the President, because they first had to undergo the vetting of the JBC and pass muster there. Indeed, the creation of the JBC was precisely intended to de-politicize the Judiciary by doing away with the intervention of the Commission on Appointments. This insulating process was absent from the Aytona midnight appointment.
Third. As earlier stated, the non-applicability of Section 15, Article VII to appointments in the Judiciary was confirmed by then Senior Associate Justice Regalado to the JBC itself when it met on March 9, 1998 to discuss the question raised by some sectors about the “constitutionality of xxx appointments” to the Court of Appeals in light of the forthcoming presidential elections. He assured that “on the basis of the (Constitutional) Commission’s records, the election ban had no application to appointments to the Court of Appeals.”[79] This confirmation was accepted by the JBC, which then submitted to the President for consideration the nominations for the eight vacancies in the Court of Appeals.[80]
The fault of Valenzuela was that it accorded no weight and due consideration to the confirmation of Justice Regalado. Valenzuela was weak, because it relied on interpretation to determine the intent of the framers rather than on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Much of the unfounded doubt about the President’s power to appoint during the period of prohibition in Section 15, Article VII could have been dispelled since its promulgation on November 9, 1998, had Valenzuela properly acknowledged and relied on the confirmation of a distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission like Justice Regalado.
Fourth. Of the 23 sections in Article VII, three (i.e., Section 14, Section15, and Section 16) concern the appointing powers of the President.
Section 14 speaks of the power of the succeeding President to revoke appointments made by an Acting President,[81] and evidently refers only to appointments in the Executive Department. It has no application to appointments in the Judiciary, because temporary or acting appointments can only undermine the independence of the Judiciary due to their being revocable at will.[82] The letter and spirit of the Constitution safeguard that independence. Also, there is no law in the books that authorizes the revocation of appointments in the Judiciary. Prior to their mandatory retirement or resignation, judges of the first and second level courts and the Justices of the third level courts may only be removed for cause, but the Members of the Supreme Court may be removed only by impeachment.
Section 16 covers only the presidential appointments that require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Thereby, the Constitutional Commission restored the requirement of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments after the requirement was removed from the 1973 Constitution. Yet, because of Section 9 of Article VIII, the restored requirement did not include appointments to the Judiciary.[83]
Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[84] It is absurd to assume that the framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was their intention in respect of appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily and surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most likely within Section 4 (1) thereof.
Fifth. To hold like the Court did in Valenzuela that Section 15 extends to appointments to the Judiciary further undermines the intent of the Constitution of ensuring the independence of the Judicial Department from the Executive and Legislative Departments. Such a holding will tie the Judiciary and the Supreme Court to the fortunes or misfortunes of political leaders vying for the Presidency in a presidential election. Consequently, the wisdom of having the new President, instead of the current incumbent President, appoint the next Chief Justice is itself suspect, and cannot ensure judicial independence, because the appointee can also become beholden to the appointing authority. In contrast, the appointment by the incumbent President does not run the same risk of compromising judicial independence, precisely because her term will end by June 30, 2010.
Sixth. The argument has been raised to the effect that there will be no need for the incumbent President to appoint during the prohibition period the successor of Chief Justice Puno within the context of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, because anyway there will still be about 45 days of the 90 days mandated in Section 4(1), Article VIII remaining.
The argument is flawed, because it is focused only on the coming vacancy occurring from Chief Justice Puno’s retirement by May 17, 2010. It ignores the need to apply Section 4(1) to every situation of a vacancy in the Supreme Court.
The argument also rests on the fallacious assumption that there will still be time remaining in the 90-day period under Section 4(1), Article VIII. The fallacy is easily demonstrable, as the OSG has shown in its comment.
Section 4 (3), Article VII requires the regular elections to be held on the second Monday of May, letting the elections fall on May 8, at the earliest, or May 14, at the latest. If the regular presidential elections are held on May 8, the period of the prohibition is 115 days. If such elections are held on May 14, the period of the prohibition is 109 days. Either period of the prohibition is longer than the full mandatory 90-day period to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court. The result is that there are at least 19 occasions (i.e., the difference between the shortest possible period of the ban of 109 days and the 90-day mandatory period for appointments) in which the outgoing President would be in no position to comply with the constitutional duty to fill up a vacancy in the Supreme Court. It is safe to assume that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended such an absurdity. In fact, in their deliberations on the mandatory period for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices under Section 4 (1), Article VIII, the framers neither discussed, nor mentioned, nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII, or its effects on the 90-day period, or vice versa. They did not need to, because they never intended Section 15, Article VII to apply to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, or in any of the lower courts.
Seventh. As a matter of fact, in an extreme case, we can even raise a doubt on whether a JBC list is necessary at all for the President – any President – to appoint a Chief Justice if the appointee is to come from the ranks of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 9, Article VIII says:
xxx. The Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for any vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
xxx
The provision clearly refers to an appointee coming into the Supreme Court from the outside, that is, a non-member of the Court aspiring to become one. It speaks of candidates for the Supreme Court, not of those who are already members or sitting justices of the Court, all of whom have previously been vetted by the JBC.
Can the President, therefore, appoint any of the incumbent Justices of the Court as Chief Justice?
The question is not squarely before us at the moment, but it should lend itself to a deeper analysis if and when circumstances permit. It should be a good issue for the proposed Constitutional Convention to consider in the light of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s statement that the President can appoint the Chief Justice from among the sitting justices of the Court even without a JBC list.
II
The Judiciary Act of 1948
The posture has been taken that no urgency exists for the President to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno, considering that the Judiciary Act of 1948 can still address the situation of having the next President appoint the successor.
Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 states:
Section 12. Vacancy in Office of Chief Justice. — In case of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or of his inability to perform the duties and powers of his office, they shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in precedence, until such disability is removed, or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified. This provision shall apply to every Associate Justice who succeeds to the office of Chief Justice.
The provision calls for an Acting Chief Justice in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice, or in the event that the Chief Justice is unable to perform his duties and powers. In either of such circumstances, the duties and powers of the office of the Chief Justice shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in precedence until a new Chief Justice is appointed or until the disability is removed.
Notwithstanding that there is no pressing need to dwell on this peripheral matter after the Court has hereby resolved the question of consequence, we do not find it amiss to confront the matter now.
We cannot agree with the posture.
A review of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII shows that the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, who all shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy, which appointments require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. With reference to the Chief Justice, he or she is appointed by the President as Chief Justice, and the appointment is never in an acting capacity. The express reference to a Chief Justice abhors the idea that the framers contemplated an Acting Chief Justice to head the membership of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they would have simply written so in the Constitution. Consequently, to rely on Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 in order to forestall the imperative need to appoint the next Chief Justice soonest is to defy the plain intent of the Constitution.
For sure, the framers intended the position of Chief Justice to be permanent, not one to be occupied in an acting or temporary capacity. In relation to the scheme of things under the present Constitution, Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 only responds to a rare situation in which the new Chief Justice is not yet appointed, or in which the incumbent Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties and powers of the office. It ought to be remembered, however, that it was enacted because the Chief Justice appointed under the 1935 Constitution was subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, and the confirmation process might take longer than expected.
The appointment of the next Chief Justice by the incumbent President is preferable to having the Associate Justice who is first in precedence take over. Under the Constitution, the heads of the Legislative and Executive Departments are popularly elected, and whoever are elected and proclaimed at once become the leaders of their respective Departments. However, the lack of any appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the independence of the Judiciary, because the Chief Justice is the head of the entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice performs functions absolutely significant to the life of the nation. With the entire Supreme Court being the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Tribunal. There being no obstacle to the appointment of the next Chief Justice, aside from its being mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be appointed by the next President.
Historically, under the present Constitution, there has been no wide gap between the retirement and the resignation of an incumbent Chief Justice, on one hand, and the appointment to and assumption of office of his successor, on the other hand. As summarized in the comment of the OSG, the chronology of succession is as follows:
1. When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Chief Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day;
2. When Chief Justice Yap retired on July 1, 1988, Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed on the same day;
3. When Chief Justice Fernan resigned on December 7, 1991, Chief Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day, December 8, 1991;
4. When Chief Justice Narvasa retired on November 29, 1998, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. was sworn into office the following early morning of November 30, 1998;
5. When Chief Justice Davide retired on December 19, 2005, Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed the next day, December 20, 2005; and
6. When Chief Justice Panganiban retired on December 6, 2006, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno took his oath as Chief Justice at midnight of December 6, 2006.[85]
III
Writ of mandamus does not lie against the JBC
May the JBC be compelled to submit the list of nominees to the President?
Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.[86] It is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officer. Mandamus is not available to direct the exercise of a judgment or discretion in a particular way.[87]
For mandamus to lie, the following requisites must be complied with: (a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (e) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Section 8(5) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the JBC to submit a list of at least three nominees to the President for every vacancy in the Judiciary:
Section 8. xxx
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. xxx
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.
However, Section 4(1) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, and within 90 days from the submission of the list, in the case of the lower courts. The 90-day period is directed at the President, not at the JBC. Thus, the JBC should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court before the occurrence of the vacancy.
Under the Constitution, it is mandatory for the JBC to submit to the President the list of nominees to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court in order to enable the President to appoint one of them within the 90-day period from the occurrence of the vacancy. The JBC has no discretion to submit the list to the President after the vacancy occurs, because that shortens the 90-day period allowed by the Constitution for the President to make the appointment. For the JBC to do so will be unconscionable on its part, considering that it will thereby effectively and illegally deprive the President of the ample time granted under the Constitution to reflect on the qualifications of the nominees named in the list of the JBC before making the appointment.
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the President’s mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies within the discretion of the JBC. The object of the petitions for mandamus herein should only refer to the duty to submit to the President the list of nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because in order to constitute unlawful neglect of duty, there must be an unjustified delay in performing that duty.[88] For mandamus to lie against the JBC, therefore, there should be an unexplained delay on its part in recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in submitting the list to the President.
The distinction between a ministerial act and a discretionary one has been delineated in the following manner:
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.[89]
Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to grant the petitions for mandamus and to issue a writ of mandamus against the JBC. The actions for that purpose are premature, because it is clear that the JBC still has until May 17, 2010, at the latest, within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
IV
Writ of prohibition does not lie against the JBC
In light of the foregoing disquisitions, the conclusion is ineluctable that only the President can appoint the Chief Justice. Hence, Soriano’s petition for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032, which proposes to prevent the JBC from intervening in the process of nominating the successor of Chief Justice Puno, lacks merit.
On the other hand, the petition for prohibition in G.R. No. 191342 is similarly devoid of merit. The challenge mounted against the composition of the JBC based on the allegedly unconstitutional allocation of a vote each to the ex officio members from the Senate and the House of Representatives, thereby prejudicing the chances of some candidates for nomination by raising the minimum number of votes required in accordance with the rules of the JBC, is not based on the petitioners’ actual interest, because they have not alleged in their petition that they were nominated to the JBC to fill some vacancies in the Judiciary. Thus, the petitioners lack locus standi on that issue.
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Dismisses the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 191002 and G.R. No. 191149, and the petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 191057 for being premature;
2. Dismisses the petitions for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032 and G.R. No. 191342 for lack of merit; and
3. Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC and, accordingly, directs the Judicial and Bar Council:
(a) To resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill the vacancy to be created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010;
(b) To prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice;
(c) To submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or before May 17, 2010; and
(d) To continue its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and submit to the President the short list of nominees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Filed on February 9, 2010.
[2] Begun on February 23, 2010.
[3] Initiated on February 10, 2010.
[4] Commenced on February 11, 2010.
[5] Dated February 15, 2010.
[6] Filed on March 8, 2010.
[7] A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998, 298 SCRA 408.
[8] Petition in G.R. No. 191002, pp. 3-4.
[9] Id., p. 5.
[10] Petition in G.R. No. 191032, pp. 4-8.
[11] Petition in G.R. No. 191057, pp. 1-2.
[12] Id., p. 11.
[13] Petition in G.R. No. 191149.
[14] Petition in G.R. No. 191342.
[15] http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/announcements/JBCreCJ.pdf
[16] http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/announcements/jbc_announce_2009/jan22%20%2710.pdf
[17] Comment of the JBC, p. 3.
[18] Id.
[19] Id., pp. 4-5.
[20] Id., p. 5.
[21] Id.
[22] Id., p. 6.
[23] Petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, pp. 5-6.
[24] Comment of the JBC, p. 6.
[25] Id., p. 7; bold emphasis is in the original text.
[26] Comment of the OSG, pp. 13-14.
[27] Id., p. 14.
[28] Id., p. 15.
[29] Id., pp. 20-24.
[30] Id., pp. 25-27.
[31] Id., pp. 29-30.
[32] Id.
[33] Id., pp. 32-33.
[34] Id., pp. 34-35.
[35] Id.
[36] Id., pp. 35-36. The OSG posits:
National interest compels the President to make such appointment for it is particularly during this crucial period when national leaders are seeking fresh mandates from the people that the Supreme Court, more than at any other time, represents stability. Hence, a full court is ideal to ensure not only due deliberation on and careful consideration of issues but also expeditious disposition of cases.
Indeed, such function becomes especially significant in view of the fact that this is the first time that the whole country will experience automated elections.
[37] Id., pp. 36-37. The OSG stresses:
The possible fallouts or serious aftermath of allowing a vacuum in the position of the Chief Justice may be greater and riskier than the consequences or repercussions of inaction. Needless to state, the appointment of the Chief Justice of this Honorable Court (sic) is the most important appointment vested by the 1987 Constitution to (sic) the President.
[38] Id., p. 37.
[39] Id., p. 38.
[40] Filed by Atty. Pitero M. Reig.
[41] Black’s Law Dictionary, 941 (6th Ed. 1991).
[42] G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003, 402 SCRA 612.
[43] Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, 246 SCRA 540, 562-563, citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 633 (1962).
[44] Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra; Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000; 342 SCRA 449, 478.
[45] 65 Phil. 56.
[46] G.R. No. 117, November 7, 1945 (Unreported).
[47] G.R. No. 2947, January 11, 1959 (Unreported).
[48] 77 Phil. 1012 (1947).
[49] 110 Phil. 331 (1960).
[50] 84 Phil. 368 (1949)
[51] E.g., Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152 (in which the Court ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi); Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680, 138698, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449 (in which the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review” of the Visiting Forces Agreement); Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 739 (in which the Court, albeit conceding that the petitioners might not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers without a showing that Balikatan 02-01 involved the exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers, reiterated Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, declaring that cases of transcendental importance must be settled promptly and definitely and the standing requirements may be relaxed); and Osmeña v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 100318, 100308, 100417,100420, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 750 (in which the Court held that where serious constitutional questions were involved, the transcendental importance to the public of the cases demanded that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure).
[52] L-No. 40004, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275.
[53] E.g., Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27 (in which the Court held that it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen interested in the execution of the law, because the question is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public right, and the people are the real party-in-interest); Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 530 (in which the Court declared that where an assertion of a public right is involved, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen and is part of the general public which possesses the right); Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, L. No. 81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 (in which the Court disregarded objections to taxpayers’ lack of personality to sue in determining the validity of the VAT Law); Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989, 175 SCRA 264 (in which the Court pronounced that although no expenditure of public funds was involved in the questioned contract, the petitioner was nonetheless clothed with the legal personality under the disclosure provision of the Constitution to question it, considering its important role in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved, indicating that public interest was definitely involved); and Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343 (in which the Court ruled that it had the discretion to waive the requirement of locus standi in determining the validity of the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, although the petitioners were not, strictly speaking, covered by the definition of proper party).
[54] David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160.
[55] 275 Ky 91, 120 SW2d 765 (1938).
[56] 19 Wend. 56 (1837).
[57] 232 NC 48, 59 SE2d 359 (1950).
[58] Bold emphasis is in the original text.
[59] Petition in G.R. No. 191032, p. 2.
[60] Petition in G.R. No. 191057, pp. 3-4; citing the cases of PHILCONSA v. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479; PHILCONSA v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506; and Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160.
[61] Petition in G.R. No. 191342, pp. 2-3.
[62] See, for instance, Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81 (where the petitioner questioned the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement, asserting that IBP was the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, but the Court held that the IBP had not shown that it was so tasked: “In this case, a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. Moreover, because peace and order are under constant threat and lawless violence occurs in increasing tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the Mindanao insurgency problem, the legal controversy raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away. It will stare us in the face again. It, therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on standing and to resolve the issue now, rather than later”, and went on to resolve the issues because the petitioner advanced constitutional issues that deserved the attention of the Court in view of their seriousness, novelty, and weight as precedents).
[63] Supra, note 42, p. 645.
[64] Id.
[65] See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 113-118 (1976); Regional Rail Reoganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138-148 (1974).
[66] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., p. 912, October 12, 1998.
[67] Supra, note 6, p. 426-427, stating:
Considering the respective reasons for the time frames for filling vacancies in the courts and the restriction on the President’s power of appointment, it is this Court’s view that, as a general proposition, in case of conflict, the former should yield to the latter. Surely, the prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases. Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years. Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. But prohibited appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects. They may, as earlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their making is considered an election offense.
To the contention that may perhaps be asserted, that Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII should prevail over Section 15 of Article VII, because they may be considered later expressions of the people when they adopted the Constitution, it suffices to point out that the Constitution must be construed in its entirety as one, single, instrument.
To be sure, instances may be conceived of the imperative need for an appointment, during the period of the ban, not only in the executive but also in the Supreme Court. This may be the case should the membership of the court be so reduced that it will have no quorum or should the voting on a particularly important question requiring expeditious resolution be evenly divided. Such a case, however, is covered by neither Section 15 of Article VII nor Section 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII.
[68] Id., pp. 422-423.
[69] Id., p. 423.
[70] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., pp. 632-633.
[71] Dizon v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-18615, December 24, 1963, 9 SCRA 714.
[72] Crawford, Earl. T., The Construction of Statutes, Thomas Law Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 262-264 (1940).
[73] Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, G.R. No. 170735, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 456, 472; citing Escosura v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 4 SCRA 285, (1962).
[74] According to Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984): “Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.” The special justification for the reversal of Valenzuela lies in its intrinsic unsoundness.
[75] No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1.
[76] Supra, note 6, pp. 424-426; bold underscoring supplied for emphasis.
[77] Aytona v. Castillo, supra, note 74, pp. 8-10 (N.B. - In the time material to Aytona, there were judges of the Court of First Instance who were appointed to districts that had no vacancies, because the incumbents had not qualified for other districts to which they had been supposedly transferred or promoted; at any rate, the appointments still required confirmation by the Commission on Appointments).
[78] Crawford, op. cit., supra, note 72, pp. 248-249.
[79] Supra, note 6, p. 413.
[80] Id.
[81] Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.
[82] Cruz, I., Philippine Political Law, 253 (2002); also Rilloraza v. Vargas, 80 Phil. 297 (1948).
[83] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., p. 908, which indicates that in his sponsorship speech delivered on October 12, 1986 on the floor of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Teofisto Guingona explained that “[a]ppointments to the judiciary shall not be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.”
[84] Rodriguez, Statutory Construction, 171 (1999).
[85] Comment of the OSG, p. 37.
[86] Section 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[87] JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000, 345 SCRA 143.
[88] Nery v. Gamolo, A.M. No. P-01-1508, February 7, 2003, 397 SCRA 110, citing Musni v. Morales, 315 SCRA 85, 86 (1999).
[89] Espiridion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146933, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 273.
. No. 146933, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 273.
March 17, 2010
x------------
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Even before the event actually happens, it is giving rise to many legal dilemmas. May the incumbent President appoint his successor, considering that Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department) of the Constitution prohibits the President or Acting President from making appointments within two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety? What is the relevance of Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department) of the Constitution, which provides that any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof, to the matter of the appointment of his successor? May the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) resume the process of screening the candidates nominated or being considered to succeed Chief Justice Puno, and submit the list of nominees to the incumbent President even during the period of the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII? Does mandamus lie to compel the submission of the shortlist of nominees by the JBC?
Precís of the Consolidated Cases
Petitioners Arturo M. De Castro and John G. Peralta respectively commenced G.R. No. 191002[1] and G.R. No. 191149[2] as special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus, praying that the JBC be compelled to submit to the incumbent President the list of at least three nominees for the position of the next Chief Justice.
In G.R. No. 191032,[3] Jaime N. Soriano, via his petition for prohibition, proposes to prevent the JBC from conducting its search, selection and nomination proceedings for the position of Chief Justice.
In G.R. No. 191057, a special civil action for mandamus,[4] the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) wants the JBC to submit its list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, because the incumbent President is not covered by the prohibition that applies only to appointments in the Executive Department.
In Administrative Matter No. 10-2-5-SC,[5] petitioner Estelito M. Mendoza, a former Solicitor General, seeks a ruling from the Court for the guidance of the JBC on whether Section 15, Article VII applies to appointments to the Judiciary.
In G.R. No. 191342,[6] which the Court consolidated on March 9, 2010 with the petitions earlier filed, petitioners Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr. and Roland B. Inting, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governors for Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas, respectively, want to enjoin and restrain the JBC from submitting a list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice to the President for appointment during the period provided for in Section 15, Article VII.
All the petitions now before the Court pose as the principal legal question whether the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement. That question is undoubtedly impressed with transcendental importance to the Nation, because the appointment of the Chief Justice is any President’s most important appointment.
A precedent frequently cited is In Re Appointments Dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively (Valenzuela),[7] by which the Court held that Section 15, Article VII prohibited the exercise by the President of the power to appoint to judicial positions during the period therein fixed.
In G.R. No. 191002, De Castro submits that the conflicting opinions on the issue expressed by legal luminaries – one side holds that the incumbent President is prohibited from making appointments within two months immediately before the coming presidential elections and until the end of her term of office as President on June 30, 2010, while the other insists that the prohibition applies only to appointments to executive positions that may influence the election and, anyway, paramount national interest justifies the appointment of a Chief Justice during the election ban – has impelled the JBC to defer the decision to whom to send its list of at least three nominees, whether to the incumbent President or to her successor.[8] He opines that the JBC is thereby arrogating unto itself “the judicial function that is not conferred upon it by the Constitution,” which has limited it to the task of recommending appointees to the Judiciary, but has not empowered it to “finally resolve constitutional questions, which is the power vested only in the Supreme Court under the Constitution.” As such, he contends that the JBC acted with grave abuse of discretion in deferring the submission of the list of nominees to the President; and that a “final and definitive resolution of the constitutional questions raised above would diffuse (sic) the tension in the legal community that would go a long way to keep and maintain stability in the judiciary and the political system.”[9]
In G.R. No. 191032, Soriano offers the view that the JBC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction when it resolved unanimously on January 18, 2010 to open the search, nomination, and selection process for the position of Chief Justice to succeed Chief Justice Puno, because the appointing authority for the position of Chief Justice is the Supreme Court itself, the President’s authority being limited to the appointment of the Members of the Supreme Court. Hence, the JBC should not intervene in the process, unless a nominee is not yet a Member of the Supreme Court.[10]
For its part, PHILCONSA observes in its petition in G.R. No. 191057 that “unorthodox and exceptional circumstances spawned by the discordant interpretations, due perhaps to a perfunctory understanding, of Sec. 15, Art. VII in relation to Secs. 4(1), 8(5) and 9, Art. VIII of the Constitution” have bred “a frenzied inflammatory legal debate on the constitutional provisions mentioned that has divided the bench and the bar and the general public as well, because of its dimensional impact to the nation and the people,” thereby fashioning “transcendental questions or issues affecting the JBC’s proper exercise of its “principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary” by submitting only to the President (not to the next President) “a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy” from which the members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts may be appointed.”[11] PHILCONSA further believes and submits that now is the time to revisit and review Valenzuela, the “strange and exotic Decision of the Court en banc.”[12]
Peralta states in his petition in G.R. No. 191149 that mandamus can compel the JBC “to immediately transmit to the President, within a reasonable time, its nomination list for the position of chief justice upon the mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in compliance with its mandated duty under the Constitution” in the event that the Court resolves that the President can appoint a Chief Justice even during the election ban under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.[13]
The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 insist that there is an actual controversy, considering that the “JBC has initiated the process of receiving applications for the position of Chief Justice and has in fact begun the evaluation process for the applications to the position,” and “is perilously near completing the nomination process and coming up with a list of nominees for submission to the President, entering into the period of the ban on midnight appointments on March 10, 2010,” which “only highlights the pressing and compelling need for a writ of prohibition to enjoin such alleged ministerial function of submitting the list, especially if it will be cone within the period of the ban on midnight appointments.”[14]
Antecedents
These cases trace their genesis to the controversy that has arisen from the forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17, 2010, or seven days after the presidential election. Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.”
On December 22, 2009, Congressman Matias V. Defensor, an ex officio member of the JBC, addressed a letter to the JBC, requesting that the process for nominations to the office of the Chief Justice be commenced immediately.
In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, therefore, the JBC passed a resolution,[15] which reads:
The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice Honorable Reynato S. Puno.
It will publish the opening of the position for applications or recommendations; deliberate on the list of candidates; publish the names of candidates; accept comments on or opposition to the applications; conduct public interviews of candidates; and prepare the shortlist of candidates.
As to the time to submit this shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in the light of the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, the JBC welcomes and will consider all views on the matter.
18 January 2010.
(sgd.)
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court &
Ex-Officio Secretary
Judicial and Bar Council
As a result, the JBC opened the position of Chief Justice for application or recommendation, and published for that purpose its announcement dated January 20, 2010,[16] viz:
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) announces the opening for application or recommendation, of the position of CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, which will be vacated on 17 May 2010 upon the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, HON. REYNATO S. PUNO.
Applications or recommendations for this position must be submitted not later than 4 February 2010 (Thursday) to the JBC Secretariat xxx:
The announcement was published on January 20, 2010 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star.[17]
Conformably with its existing practice, the JBC “automatically considered” for the position of Chief Justice the five most senior of the Associate Justices of the Court, namely: Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. However, the last two declined their nomination through letters dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively.[18]
Others either applied or were nominated. Victor Fernandez, the retired Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, applied, but later formally withdrew his name from consideration through his letter dated February 8, 2010. Candidates who accepted their nominations without conditions were Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion; and Associate Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval (Sandiganbayan). Candidates who accepted their nominations with conditions were Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.[19] Declining their nominations were Atty. Henry Villarica (via telephone conversation with the Executive Officer of the JBC on February 5, 2010) and Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr. (via telephone conversation with the Executive Officer of the JBC on February 8, 2010).[20]
The JBC excluded from consideration former RTC Judge Florentino Floro (for failure to meet the standards set by the JBC rules); and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio of the Office of the Ombudsman (due to cases pending in the Office of the Ombudsman).[21]
In its meeting of February 8, 2010, the JBC resolved to proceed to the next step of announcing the names of the following candidates to invite the public to file their sworn complaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not later than February 22, 2010, to wit: Associate Justice Carpio, Associate Justice Corona, Associate Justice Carpio Morales, Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Brion, and Associate Justice Sandoval. The announcement came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star issues of February 13, 2010.[22]
Issues
Although it has already begun the process for the filling of the position of Chief Justice Puno in accordance with its rules, the JBC is not yet decided on when to submit to the President its list of nominees for the position due to the controversy now before us being yet unresolved. In the meanwhile, time is marching in quick step towards May 17, 2010 when the vacancy occurs upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
The actions of the JBC have sparked a vigorous debate not only among legal luminaries, but also among non-legal quarters, and brought out highly disparate opinions on whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice or not. Petitioner Mendoza notes that in Valenzuela, which involved the appointments of two judges of the Regional Trial Court, the Court addressed this issue now before us as an administrative matter “to avoid any possible polemics concerning the matter,” but he opines that the polemics leading to Valenzuela “would be miniscule [sic] compared to the “polemics” that have now erupted in regard to the current controversy,” and that unless “put to a halt, and this may only be achieved by a ruling from the Court, the integrity of the process and the credibility of whoever is appointed to the position of Chief Justice, may irreparably be impaired.”[23]
Accordingly, we reframe the issues as submitted by each petitioner in the order of the chronological filing of their petitions.
G.R. No. 191002
a. Does the JBC have the power and authority to resolve the constitutional question of whether the incumbent President can appoint a Chief Justice during the election ban period?
b. Does the incumbent President have the power and authority to appoint during the election ban the successor of Chief Justice Puno when he vacates the position of Chief Justice on his retirement on May 17, 2010?
G.R. No. 191032
a. Is the power to appoint the Chief Justice vested in the Supreme Court en banc?
G.R. No. 191057
a. Is the constitutional prohibition against appointment under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution applicable only to positions in the Executive Department?
b. Assuming that the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution also applies to members of the Judiciary, may such appointments be excepted because they are impressed with public interest or are demanded by the exigencies of public service, thereby justifying these appointments during the period of prohibition?
c. Does the JBC have the authority to decide whether or not to include and submit the names of nominees who manifested interest to be nominated for the position of Chief Justice on the understanding that his/her nomination will be submitted to the next President in view of the prohibition against presidential appointments from March 11, 2010 until June 30, 2010?
A. M. No. 10-2-5-SC
a. Does Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution apply to appointments to positions in the Judiciary under Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution?
b. May President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo make appointments to the Judiciary after March 10, 2010, including that for the position of Chief Justice after Chief Justice Puno retires on May 17, 2010?
G.R. No. 191149
a. Does the JBC have the discretion to withhold the submission of the short list to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?
G.R. No. 191342
a. Does the JBC have the authority to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent President without committing a grave violation of the Constitution and jurisprudence prohibiting the incumbent President from making midnight appointments two months immediately preceding the next presidential elections until the end of her term?
b. Is any act performed by the JBC, including the vetting of the candidates for the position of Chief Justice, constitutionally invalid in view of the JBC’s illegal composition allowing each member from the Senate and the House of Representatives to have one vote each?
On February 16, 2010, the Court directed the JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the consolidated petitions, except that filed in G.R. No. 191342.
On February 26, 2010, the JBC submitted its comment, reporting therein that the next stage of the process for the selection of the nominees for the position of Chief Justice would be the public interview of the candidates and the preparation of the short list of candidates, “including the interview of the constitutional experts, as may be needed.”[24] It stated:[25]
Likewise, the JBC has yet to take a position on when to submit the shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in light of Section 4 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled within ninety (90) days from the occurrence thereof, Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution concerning the ban on Presidential appointments “two (2) months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term” and Section 261 (g), Article XXII of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines.
12. Since the Honorable Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, the JBC will be guided by its decision in these consolidated Petitions and Administrative Matter.
On February 26, 2010, the OSG also submitted its comment, essentially stating that the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement by May 17, 2010.
The OSG insists that: (a) a writ of prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its principal function under the Constitution to recommend appointees in the Judiciary; (b) the JBC’s function to recommend is a “continuing process,” which does not begin with each vacancy or end with each nomination, because the goal is “to submit the list of nominees to Malacañang on the very day the vacancy arises”;[26] the JBC was thus acting within its jurisdiction when it commenced and set in motion the process of selecting the nominees to be submitted to the President for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno;[27] (c) petitioner Soriano’s theory that it is the Supreme Court, not the President, who has the power to appoint the Chief Justice, is incorrect, and proceeds from his misinterpretation of the phrase “members of the Supreme Court” found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution as referring only to the Associate Justices, to the exclusion of the Chief Justice; [28] (d) a writ of mandamus can issue to compel the JBC to submit the list of nominees to the President, considering that its duty to prepare the list of at least three nominees is unqualified, and the submission of the list is a ministerial act that the JBC is mandated to perform under the Constitution; as such, the JBC, the nature of whose principal function is executive, is not vested with the power to resolve who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice and, therefore, has no discretion to withhold the list from the President; [29] and (e) a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the JBC to include or exclude particular candidates as nominees, considering that there is no imperative duty on its part to include in or exclude from the list particular individuals, but, on the contrary, the JBC’s determination of who it nominates to the President is an exercise of a discretionary duty.[30]
The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint the next Chief Justice, because the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments in the Supreme Court. It argues that any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from its occurrence, pursuant to Section 4(1), Article VIII of the Constitution; [31] that in their deliberations on the mandatory period for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, the framers neither mentioned nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments, or its effects on such period, or vice versa;[32] that had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme Court appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so in the Constitution, which explains why the prohibition found in Article VII (Executive Department) was not written in Article VIII (Judicial Department); and that the framers also incorporated in Article VIII ample restrictions or limitations on the President’s power to appoint members of the Supreme Court to ensure its independence from “political vicissitudes” and its “insulation from political pressures,”[33] such as stringent qualifications for the positions, the establishment of the JBC, the specified period within which the President shall appoint a Supreme Court Justice.
The OSG posits that although Valenzuela involved the appointment of RTC Judges, the situation now refers to the appointment of the next Chief Justice to which the prohibition does not apply; that, at any rate, Valenzuela even recognized that there might be “the imperative need for an appointment during the period of the ban,” like when the membership of the Supreme Court should be “so reduced that it will have no quorum, or should the voting on a particular important question requiring expeditious resolution be divided”;[34] and that Valenzuela also recognized that the filling of vacancies in the Judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, most especially if there is any compelling reason to justify the making of the appointments during the period of the prohibition.[35]
Lastly, the OSG urges that there are now undeniably compelling reasons for the incumbent President to appoint the next Chief Justice, to wit: (a) a deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues is “quite expected”;[36] (b) the Court acts as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), which, sitting en banc, is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice President and, as such, has “the power to correct manifest errors on the statement of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass (COC)”;[37] (c) if history has shown that during ordinary times the Chief Justice was appointed immediately upon the occurrence of the vacancy, from the time of the effectivity of the Constitution, there is now even more reason to appoint the next Chief Justice immediately upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno;[38] and (d) should the next Chief Justice come from among the incumbent Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, thereby causing a vacancy, it also becomes incumbent upon the JBC to start the selection process for the filling up of the vacancy in accordance with the constitutional mandate.[39]
On March 9, 2010, the Court admitted the following comments/oppositions-in-intervention, to wit:
(a) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. Peter Irving Corvera (Corvera);[40]
(b) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. Christian Robert S. Lim (Lim);
(c) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 23, 2010 of Atty. Alfonso V. Tan, Jr. (Tan);
(d) The comment/opposition-in-intervention dated March 1, 2010 of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL);
(e) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 25, 2010 of Atty. Marlou B. Ubano (Ubano);
(f) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 25, 2010 of Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Davao del Sur Chapter and its Immediate Past President, Atty. Israelito P. Torreon (IBP- Davao del Sur);
(g) The opposition-in-intervention dated February 26, 2010 of Atty. Mitchell John L. Boiser (Boiser);
(h)The consolidated comment/opposition-in-intervention dated February 26, 2010 of BAYAN Chairman Dr. Carolina P. Araullo; BAYAN Secretary General Renato M. Reyes, Jr.; Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) Chairman Ferdinand Gaite; Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY) Secretary General Gloria Arellano; Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Kabataan ng Samayanan Para sa Kaunlaran (ANAKBAYAN) Chairman Ken Leonard Ramos; Tayo ang Pag-asa Convenor Alvin Peters; League of Filipino Students (LFS) Chairman James Mark Terry Lacuanan Ridon; National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) Chairman Einstein Recedes, College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) Chairman Vijae Alquisola; and Student Christian Movement of the Philippines (SCMP) Chairman Ma. Cristina Angela Guevarra (BAYAN et al.);
(i) The opposition-in-intervention dated March 3, 2010 of Walden F. Bello and Loretta Ann P. Rosales (Bello et al.); and
(j) The consolidated comment/opposition-in-intervention dated March 4, 2010 of the Women Trial Lawyers Organization of the Philippines (WTLOP), represented by Atty. Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana; Atty. Belleza Alojado Demaisip; Atty. Teresita Gandionco-Oledan; Atty. Ma. Verena Kasilag-Villanueva; Atty. Marilyn Sta. Romana; Atty. Leonila de Jesus; and Atty. Guinevere de Leon (WTLOP).
Intervenors Tan, WTLOP, BAYAN et al., Corvera, IBP Davao del Sur, and NUPL take the position that De Castro’s petition was bereft of any basis, because under Section 15, Article VII, the outgoing President is constitutionally banned from making any appointments from March 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010, including the appointment of the successor of Chief Justice Puno. Hence, mandamus does not lie to compel the JBC to submit the list of nominees to the outgoing President if the constitutional prohibition is already in effect. Tan adds that the prohibition against midnight appointments was applied by the Court to the appointments to the Judiciary made by then President Ramos, with the Court holding that the duty of the President to fill the vacancies within 90 days from occurrence of the vacancies (for the Supreme Court) or from the submission of the list (for all other courts) was not an excuse to violate the constitutional prohibition.
Intervenors Tan, Ubano, Boiser, Corvera, NULP, BAYAN et al., and Bello et al. oppose the insistence that Valenzuela recognizes the possibility that the President may appoint the next Chief Justice if exigent circumstances warrant the appointment, because that recognition is obiter dictum; and aver that the absence of a Chief Justice or even an Associate Justice does not cause epic damage or absolute disruption or paralysis in the operations of the Judiciary. They insist that even without the successor of Chief Justice Puno being appointed by the incumbent President, the Court is allowed to sit and adjudge en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members at its discretion; that a full membership of the Court is not necessary; that petitioner De Castro’s fears are unfounded and baseless, being based on a mere possibility, the occurrence of which is entirely unsure; that it is not in the national interest to have a Chief Justice whose appointment is unconstitutional and, therefore, void; and that such a situation will create a crisis in the judicial system and will worsen an already vulnerable political situation.
ice is imperative for the stability of the judicial system and the political situation in the country when the election-related questions reach the Court as false, because there is an existing law on filling the void brought about by a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice; that the law is Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, which has not been repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or any other law; that a temporary or an acting Chief Justice is not anathema to judicial independence; that the designation of an acting Chief Justice is not only provided for by law, but is also dictated by practical necessity; that the practice was intended to be enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, but the Commissioners decided not to write it in the Constitution on account of the settled practice; that the practice was followed under the 1987 Constitution, when, in 1992, at the end of the term of Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, Associate Justice Andres Narvasa assumed the position as Acting Chief Justice prior to his official appointment as Chief Justice; that said filling up of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice was acknowledged and even used by analogy in the case of the vacancy of the Chairman of the Commission on Elections, per Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358; and that the history of the Supreme Court has shown that this rule of succession has been repeatedly observed and has become a part of its tradition.
Intervenors Ubano, Boiser, NUPL, Corvera, and Lim maintain that the Omnibus Election Code penalizes as an election offense the act of any government official who appoints, promotes, or gives any increase in salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or employee during the period of 45 days before a regular election; that the provision covers all appointing heads, officials, and officers of a government office, agency or instrumentality, including the President; that for the incumbent President to appoint the next Chief Justice upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno, or during the period of the ban under the Omnibus Election Code, constitutes an election offense; that even an appointment of the next Chief Justice prior to the election ban is fundamentally invalid and without effect because there can be no appointment until a vacancy occurs; and that the vacancy for the position can occur only by May 17, 2010.
Intervenor Boiser adds that De Castro’s prayer to compel the submission of nominees by the JBC to the incumbent President is off-tangent because the position of Chief Justice is still not vacant; that to speak of a list, much more a submission of such list, before a vacancy occurs is glaringly premature; that the proposed advance appointment by the incumbent President of the next Chief Justice will be unconstitutional; and that no list of nominees can be submitted by the JBC if there is no vacancy.
All the intervenors-oppositors submit that Section 15, Article VII makes no distinction between the kinds of appointments made by the President; and that the Court, in Valenzuela, ruled that the appointments by the President of the two judges during the prohibition period were void.
Intervenor WTLOP posits that Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not apply only to the appointments in the Executive Department, but also to judicial appointments, contrary to the submission of PHILCONSA; that Section 15 does not distinguish; and that Valenzuela already interpreted the prohibition as applicable to judicial appointments.
Intervenor WTLOP further posits that petitioner Soriano’s contention that the power to appoint the Chief Justice is vested, not in the President, but in the Supreme Court, is utterly baseless, because the Chief Justice is also a Member of the Supreme Court as contemplated under Section 9, Article VIII; and that, at any rate, the term “members” was interpreted in Vargas v. Rillaroza (G.R. No. L-1612, February 26, 1948) to refer to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; that PHILCONSA’s prayer that the Court pass a resolution declaring that persons who manifest their interest as nominees, but with conditions, shall not be considered nominees by the JBC is diametrically opposed to the arguments in the body of its petition; that such glaring inconsistency between the allegations in the body and the relief prayed for highlights the lack of merit of PHILCONSA’s petition; that the role of the JBC cannot be separated from the constitutional prohibition on the President; and that the Court must direct the JBC to follow the rule of law, that is, to submit the list of nominees only to the next duly elected President after the period of the constitutional ban against midnight appointments has expired.
Oppositor IBP Davao del Sur opines that the JBC – because it is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial body – has no duty under the Constitution to resolve the question of whether the incumbent President can appoint a Chief Justice during the period of prohibition; that even if the JBC has already come up with a short list, it still has to bow to the strict limitations under Section 15, Article VII; that should the JBC defer submission of the list, it is not arrogating unto itself a judicial function, but simply respecting the clear mandate of the Constitution; and that the application of the general rule in Section 15, Article VII to the Judiciary does not violate the principle of separation of powers, because said provision is an exception.
Oppositors NUPL, Corvera, Lim and BAYAN et al. state that the JBC’s act of nominating appointees to the Supreme Court is purely ministerial and does not involve the exercise of judgment; that there can be no default on the part of the JBC in submitting the list of nominees to the President, considering that the call for applications only begins from the occurrence of the vacancy in the Supreme Court; and that the commencement of the process of screening of applicants to fill the vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice only begins from the retirement on May 17, 2010, for, prior to this date, there is no definite legal basis for any party to claim that the submission or non-submission of the list of nominees to the President by the JBC is a matter of right under law.
The main question presented in all the filings herein – because it involves two seemingly conflicting provisions of the Constitution – imperatively demands the attention and resolution of this Court, the only authority that can resolve the question definitively and finally. The imperative demand rests on the ever-present need, first, to safeguard the independence, reputation, and integrity of the entire Judiciary, particularly this Court, an institution that has been unnecessarily dragged into the harsh polemics brought on by the controversy; second, to settle once and for all the doubt about an outgoing President’s power to appoint to the Judiciary within the long period starting two months before the presidential elections until the end of the presidential term; and third, to set a definite guideline for the JBC to follow in the discharge of its primary office of screening and nominating qualified persons for appointment to the Judiciary.
Thus, we resolve.
Ruling of the Court
Locus Standi of Petitioners
The preliminary issue to be settled is whether or not the petitioners have locus standi.
Black defines locus standi as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”[41] In public or constitutional litigations, the Court is often burdened with the determination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the ever-present need to regulate the invocation of the intervention of the Court to correct any official action or policy in order to avoid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices involved in public service. It is required, therefore, that the petitioner must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, for, as indicated in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.:[42]
The question on legal standing is whether such parties have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”[43] Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.[44]
It is true that as early as in 1937, in People v. Vera,[45] the Court adopted the direct injury test for determining whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi. There, the Court held that the person who would assail the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result.” Vera was followed in Custodio v. President of the Senate,[46] Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Association v. De la Fuente,[47] Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix,[48] and Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works.[49]
Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement of locus standi, being a mere procedural technicality, can be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. For instance, in 1949, in Araneta v. Dinglasan,[50] the Court liberalized the approach when the cases had “transcendental importance.” Some notable controversies whose petitioners did not pass the direct injury test were allowed to be treated in the same way as in Araneta v. Dinglasan.[51]
In the 1975 decision in Aquino v. Commission on Elections,[52] this Court decided to resolve the issues raised by the petition due to their “far-reaching implications,” even if the petitioner had no personality to file the suit. The liberal approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been adopted in several notable cases, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic
organizations to bring their suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.[53]
However, the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional executive or legislative action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public in general. Although such petitioner may not be as adversely affected by the action complained against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the vindication of a public right.
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus standi. That is not surprising, for even if the issue may appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to sue. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[54] the Court aptly explains why:
Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both “citizen” and “taxpayer” standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk,[55] where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern. As held by the New York Supreme Court in People ex rel Case v. Collins:[56] “In matter of mere public right, however…the people are the real parties…It is at least the right, if not the duty, of every citizen to interfere and see that a public offence be properly pursued and punished, and that a public grievance be remedied.” With respect to taxpayer’s suits, Terr v. Jordan[57] held that “the right of a citizen and a taxpayer to maintain an action in courts to restrain the unlawful use of public funds to his injury cannot be denied.”[58]
Petitioners De Castro (G.R. No. 191002), Soriano (G.R. No. 191032) and Peralta (G.R. No. 191149) all assert their right as citizens filing their petitions on behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issue of the appointment of the next Chief Justice. De Castro and Soriano further claim standing as taxpayers, with Soriano averring that he is affected by the continuing proceedings in the JBC, which involve “unnecessary, if not, illegal disbursement of public funds.”[59]
PHILCONSA alleges itself to be a non-stock, non-profit organization existing under the law for the purpose of defending, protecting, and preserving the Constitution and promoting its growth and flowering. It also alleges that the Court has recognized its legal standing to file cases on constitutional issues in several cases.[60]
In A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, Mendoza states that he is a citizen of the Philippines, a member of the Philippine Bar engaged in the active practice of law, and a former Solicitor General, former Minister of Justice, former Member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa and the Regular Batasang Pambansa, and former member of the Faculty of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines.
The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 are the Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas. They allege that they have the legal standing to enjoin the submission of the list of nominees by the JBC to the President, for “[a]n adjudication of the proper interpretation and application of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments with regard to respondent JBC’s function in submitting the list of nominees is well within the concern of petitioners, who are duty bound to ensure that obedience and respect for the Constitution is upheld, most especially by government offices, such as respondent JBC, who are specifically tasked to perform crucial functions in the whole scheme of our democratic institution.” They further allege that, reposed in them as members of the Bar, is a clear legal interest in the process of selecting the members of the Supreme Court, and in the selection of the Chief Justice, considering that the person appointed becomes a member of the body that has constitutional supervision and authority over them and other members of the legal profession.[61]
The Court rules that the petitioners have each demonstrated adequate interest in the outcome of the controversy as to vest them with the requisite locus standi. The issues before us are of transcendental importance to the people as a whole, and to the petitioners in particular. Indeed, the issues affect everyone (including the petitioners), regardless of one’s personal interest in life, because they concern that great doubt about the authority of the incumbent President to appoint not only the successor of the retiring incumbent Chief Justice, but also others who may serve in the Judiciary, which already suffers from a far too great number of vacancies in the ranks of trial judges throughout the country.
In any event, the Court retains the broad discretion to waive the requirement of legal standing in favor of any petitioner when the matter involved has transcendental importance, or otherwise requires a liberalization of the requirement.[62]
Yet, if any doubt still lingers about the locus standi of any petitioner, we dispel the doubt now in order to remove any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue squarely presented herein. We are not to shirk from discharging our solemn duty by reason alone of an obstacle more technical than otherwise. In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[63] we pointed out: “Standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest.” But even if, strictly speaking, the petitioners “are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.”[64]
Justiciability
Intervenor NUPL maintains that there is no actual case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for adjudication, considering that although the selection process commenced by the JBC is going on, there is yet no final list of nominees; hence, there is no imminent controversy as to whether such list must be submitted to the incumbent President, or reserved for submission to the incoming President.
Intervenor Tan raises the lack of any actual justiciable controversy that is ripe for judicial determination, pointing out that petitioner De Castro has not even shown that the JBC has already completed its selection process and is now ready to submit the list to the incumbent President; and that petitioner De Castro is merely presenting a hypothetical scenario that is clearly not sufficient for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.
Intervenors Corvera and Lim separately opine that De Castro’s petition rests on an overbroad and vague allegation of political tension, which is insufficient basis for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.
Intervenor BAYAN et al. contend that the petitioners are seeking a mere advisory opinion on what the JBC and the President should do, and are not invoking any issues that are justiciable in nature.
Intervenors Bello et al. submit that there exist no conflict of legal rights and no assertion of opposite legal claims in any of the petitions; that PHILCONSA does not allege any action taken by the JBC, but simply avers that the conditional manifestations of two Members of the Court, accented by the divided opinions and interpretations of legal experts, or associations of lawyers and law students on the issues published in the daily newspapers are “matters of paramount and transcendental importance to the bench, bar and general public”; that PHILCONSA fails not only to cite any legal duty or allege any failure to perform the duty, but also to indicate what specific action should be done by the JBC; that Mendoza does not even attempt to portray the matter as a controversy or conflict of rights, but, instead, prays that the Court should “rule for the guidance of” the JBC; that the fact that the Court supervises the JBC does not automatically imply that the Court can rule on the issues presented in the Mendoza petition, because supervision involves oversight, which means that the subordinate officer or body must first act, and if such action is not in accordance with prescribed rules, then, and only then, may the person exercising oversight order the action to be redone to conform to the prescribed rules; that the Mendoza petition does not allege that the JBC has performed a specific act susceptible to correction for being illegal or unconstitutional; and that the Mendoza petition asks the Court to issue an advisory ruling, not to exercise its power of supervision to correct a wrong act by the JBC, but to declare the state of the law in the absence of an actual case or controversy.
We hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. The reality is that the JBC already commenced the proceedings for the selection of the nominees to be included in a short list to be submitted to the President for consideration of which of them will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the next Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet vacant, the fact that the JBC began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has yet to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial determination, because the next steps are the public interview of the candidates, the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the “interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed.”
A part of the question to be reviewed by the Court is whether the JBC properly initiated the process, there being an insistence from some of the oppositors-intervenors that the JBC could only do so once the vacancy has occurred (that is, after May 17, 2010). Another part is, of course, whether the JBC may resume its process until the short list is prepared, in view of the provision of Section 4(1), Article VIII, which unqualifiedly requires the President to appoint one from the short list to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court (be it the Chief Justice or an Associate Justice) within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
The ripeness of the controversy for judicial determination may not be doubted. The challenges to the authority of the JBC to open the process of nomination and to continue the process until the submission of the list of nominees; the insistence of some of the petitioners to compel the JBC through mandamus to submit the short list to the incumbent President; the counter-insistence of the intervenors to prohibit the JBC from submitting the short list to the incumbent President on the ground that said list should be submitted instead to the next President; the strong position that the incumbent President is already prohibited under Section 15, Article VII from making any appointments, including those to the Judiciary, starting on May 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010; and the contrary position that the incumbent President is not so prohibited are only some of the real issues for determination. All such issues establish the ripeness of the controversy, considering that for some the short list must be submitted before the vacancy actually occurs by May 17, 2010. The outcome will not be an abstraction, or a merely hypothetical exercise. The resolution of the controversy will surely settle – with finality – the nagging questions that are preventing the JBC from moving on with the process that it already began, or that are reasons persuading the JBC to desist from the rest of the process.
We need not await the occurrence of the vacancy by May 17, 2010 in order for the principal issue to ripe for judicial determination by the Court. It is enough that one alleges conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but seemingly proscribed by the Constitution. A reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the Court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.[65] Herein, the facts are not in doubt, for only legal issues remain.
Substantive Merits
I
Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply
to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court
or to other appointments to the Judiciary
Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in conflict.
The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department), provides:
Section 15. 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.
The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department), states:
Section 4. (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
In the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, with the exception of Soriano, Tolentino and Inting, submit that the incumbent President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, on the ground that the prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not extend to appointments in the Judiciary.
The Court agrees with the submission.
First. The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to meticulously drafting, styling, and arranging the Constitution. Such meticulousness indicates that the organization and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done by the framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the Constitution should contain.
The Constitution consists of 18 Articles, three of which embody the allocation of the awesome powers of government among the three great departments, the Legislative (Article VI), the Executive (Article VII), and the Judicial Departments (Article VIII). The arrangement was a true recognition of the principle of separation of powers that underlies the political structure, as Constitutional Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna (later a worthy member of the Court) explained in his sponsorship speech:
We have in the political part of this Constitution opted for the separation of powers in government because we believe that the only way to protect freedom and liberty is to separate and divide the awesome powers of government. Hence, we return to the separation of powers doctrine and the legislative, executive and judicial departments.[66]
As can be seen, Article VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the powers vested by the Constitution in the President. The presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article.
Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court, among others. Section 4(1) and Section 9 of this Article are the provisions specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the submission of a list of at least three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article mandates the President to fill the vacancy within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Although Valenzuela[67] came to hold that the prohibition covered even judicial appointments, it cannot be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not firmly rest on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Thereby, the confirmation made to the JBC by then Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado of this Court, a former member of the Constitutional Commission, about the prohibition not being intended to apply to the appointments to the Judiciary, which confirmation Valenzuela even expressly mentioned, should prevail.
Relevantly, Valenzuela adverted to the intent of the framers in the genesis of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, viz:
V . Intent of the Constitutional Commission
The journal of the Commission which drew up the present Constitution discloses that the original proposal was to have an eleven-member Supreme Court. Commissioner Eulogio Lerum wanted to increase the number of Justices to fifteen. He also wished to ensure that that number would not be reduced for any appreciable length of time (even only temporarily), and to this end proposed that any vacancy “must be filled within two months from the date that the vacancy occurs.” His proposal to have a 15-member Court was not initially adopted. Persisting however in his desire to make certain that the size of the Court would not be decreased for any substantial period as a result of vacancies, Lerum proposed the insertion in the provision (anent the Court’s membership) of the same mandate that “IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM OCCURRENCE THEREOF.” He later agreed to suggestions to make the period three, instead of two, months. As thus amended, the proposal was approved. As it turned out, however, the Commission ultimately agreed on a fifteen-member Court. Thus it was that the section fixing the composition of the Supreme Court came to include a command to fill up any vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence.
In this connection, it may be pointed out that that instruction that any “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days” (in the last sentence of Section 4 (1) of Article VIII) contrasts with the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, which is couched in stronger negative language - that “a President or Acting President shall not make appointments…”
The commission later approved a proposal of Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) to add to what is now Section 9 of Article VIII, the following paragraph: “WITH RESPECT TO LOWER COURTS, THE PRESIDENT SHALL ISSUE THE APPOINTMENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LIST” (of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council to the President). Davide stated that his purpose was to provide a “uniform rule” for lower courts. According to him, the 90-day period should be counted from submission of the list of nominees to the President in view of the possibility that the President might reject the list submitted to him and the JBC thus need more time to submit a new one.
On the other hand, Section 15, Article VII - which in effect deprives the President of his appointing power “two months immediately before the next presidential elections up to the end of his term” - was approved without discussion.[68]
However, the reference to the records of the Constitutional Commission did not advance or support the result in Valenzuela. Far to the contrary, the records disclosed the express intent of the framers to enshrine in the Constitution, upon the initiative of Commissioner Eulogio Lerum, “a command [to the President] to fill up any vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence,” which even Valenzuela conceded.[69] The exchanges during deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on October 8, 1986 further show that the filling of a vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90-day period was a true mandate for the President, viz:
MR. DE CASTRO. I understand that our justices now in the Supreme Court, together with the Chief Justice, are only 11.
MR. CONCEPCION. Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. And the second sentence of this subsection reads: “Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
MR. CONCEPCION. That is right.
MR. DE CASTRO. Is this now a mandate to the executive to fill the vacancy?
MR. CONCEPCION. That is right. That is borne out of the fact that in the past 30 years, seldom has the Court had a complete complement.[70]
Moreover, the usage in Section 4(1), Article VIII of the word shall – an imperative, operating to impose a duty that may be enforced[71] – should not be disregarded. Thereby, Sections 4(1) imposes on the President the imperative duty to make an appointment of a Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. The failure by the President to do so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution.
The 90-day limitation fixed in Section 4(1), Article VIII for the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court was undoubtedly a special provision to establish a definite mandate for the President as the appointing power, and cannot be defeated by mere judicial interpretation in Valenzuela to the effect that Section 15, Article VII prevailed because it was “couched in stronger negative language.” Such interpretation even turned out to be conjectural, in light of the records of the Constitutional Commission’s deliberations on Section 4 (1), Article VIII.
How Valenzuela justified its pronouncement and result is hardly warranted. According to an authority on statutory construction:[72]
xxx the court should seek to avoid any conflict in the provisions of the statute by endeavoring to harmonize and reconcile every part so that each shall be effective. It is not easy to draft a statute, or any other writing for that matter, which may not in some manner contain conflicting provisions. But what appears to the reader to be a conflict may not have seemed so to the drafter. Undoubtedly, each provision was inserted for a definite reason. Often by considering the enactment in its entirety, what appears to be on its face a conflict may be cleared up and the provisions reconciled.
Consequently, that construction which will leave every word operative will be favored over one which leaves some word or provision meaningless because of inconsistency. But a word should not be given effect, if to do so gives the statute a meaning contrary to the intent of the legislature. On the other hand, if full effect cannot be given to the words of a statute, they must be made effective as far as possible. Nor should the provisions of a statute which are inconsistent be harmonized at a sacrifice of the legislative intention. It may be that two provisions are irreconcilable; if so, the one which expresses the intent of the law-makers should control. And the arbitrary rule has been frequently announced that where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the different provisions of a statute, the provision last in order of position will prevail, since it is the latest expression of the legislative will. Obviously, the rule is subject to deserved criticism. It is seldom applied, and probably then only where an irreconcilable conflict exists between different sections of the same act, and after all other means of ascertaining the meaning of the legislature have been exhausted. Where the conflict is between two statutes, more may be said in favor of the rule’s application, largely because of the principle of implied repeal.
In this connection, PHILCONSA’s urging of a revisit and a review of Valenzuela is timely and appropriate. Valenzuela arbitrarily ignored the express intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4 (1), Article VIII stand independently of any other provision, least of all one found in Article VII. It further ignored that the two provisions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. As judges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the framers.[73]
Consequently, prohibiting the incumbent President from appointing a Chief Justice on the premise that Section 15, Article VII extends to appointments in the Judiciary cannot be sustained. A misinterpretation like Valenzuela should not be allowed to last after its false premises have been exposed.[74] It will not do to merely distinguish Valenzuela from these cases, for the result to be reached herein is entirely incompatible with what Valenzuela decreed. Consequently, Valenzuela now deserves to be quickly sent to the dustbin of the unworthy and forgettable.
We reverse Valenzuela.
Second. Section 15, Article VII does not apply as well to all other appointments in the Judiciary.
There is no question that one of the reasons underlying the adoption of Section 15 as part of Article VII was to eliminate midnight appointments from being made by an outgoing Chief Executive in the mold of the appointments dealt with in the leading case of Aytona v. Castillo.[75] In fact, in Valenzuela, the Court so observed, stating that:
xxx it appears that Section 15, Article VII is directed against two types of appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within the two months preceding a Presidential election and are similar to those which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code, viz.:
xxx
The second type of appointments prohibited by Section 15, Article VII consists of the so-called “midnight” appointments. In Aytona v. Castillo, it was held that after the proclamation of Diosdado Macapagal as duly elected President, President Carlos P. Garcia, who was defeated in his bid for reelection, became no more than a “caretaker” administrator whose duty was to “prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President.” Said the Court:
“The filling up of vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and appointee's qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But the issuance of 350 appointments in one night and the planned induction of almost all of them in a few hours before the inauguration of the new President may, with some reason, be regarded by the latter as an abuse of Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby to deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments.”
As indicated, the Court recognized that there may well be appointments to important positions which have to be made even after the proclamation of the new President. Such appointments, so long as they are “few and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee’s qualifications,” can be made by the outgoing President. Accordingly, several appointments made by President Garcia, which were shown to have been well considered, were upheld.
Section 15, Article VII has a broader scope than the Aytona ruling. It may not unreasonably be deemed to contemplate not only “midnight” appointments – those made obviously for partisan reasons as shown by their number and the time of their making – but also appointments presumed made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the Presidential election.
On the other hand, the exception in the same Section 15 of Article VII – allowing appointments to be made during the period of the ban therein provided – is much narrower than that recognized in Aytona. The exception allows only the making of temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Obviously, the article greatly restricts the appointing power of the President during the period of the ban.
Considering the respective reasons for the time frames for filling vacancies in the courts and the restriction on the President's power of appointment, it is this Court’s view that, as a general proposition, in case of conflict, the former should yield to the latter. Surely, the prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases. Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years. Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. But prohibited appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects. They may, as earlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their making is considered an election offense.[76]
Given the background and rationale for the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, we have no doubt that the Constitutional Commission confined the prohibition to appointments made in the Executive Department. The framers did not need to extend the prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary, because their establishment of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and screening of candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would no longer be midnight appointments to the Judiciary. If midnight appointments in the mold of Aytona were made in haste and with irregularities, or made by an outgoing Chief Executive in the last days of his administration out of a desire to subvert the policies of the incoming President or for partisanship,[77] the appointments to the Judiciary made after the establishment of the JBC would not be suffering from such defects because of the JBC’s prior processing of candidates. Indeed, it is axiomatic in statutory construction that the ascertainment of the purpose of the enactment is a step in the process of ascertaining the intent or meaning of the enactment, because the reason for the enactment must necessarily shed considerable light on “the law of the statute,” i.e., the intent; hence, the enactment should be construed with reference to its intended scope and purpose, and the court should seek to carry out this purpose rather than to defeat it.[78]
Also, the intervention of the JBC eliminates the danger that appointments to the Judiciary can be made for the purpose of buying votes in a coming presidential election, or of satisfying partisan considerations. The experience from the time of the establishment of the JBC shows that even candidates for judicial positions at any level backed by people influential with the President could not always be assured of being recommended for the consideration of the President, because they first had to undergo the vetting of the JBC and pass muster there. Indeed, the creation of the JBC was precisely intended to de-politicize the Judiciary by doing away with the intervention of the Commission on Appointments. This insulating process was absent from the Aytona midnight appointment.
Third. As earlier stated, the non-applicability of Section 15, Article VII to appointments in the Judiciary was confirmed by then Senior Associate Justice Regalado to the JBC itself when it met on March 9, 1998 to discuss the question raised by some sectors about the “constitutionality of xxx appointments” to the Court of Appeals in light of the forthcoming presidential elections. He assured that “on the basis of the (Constitutional) Commission’s records, the election ban had no application to appointments to the Court of Appeals.”[79] This confirmation was accepted by the JBC, which then submitted to the President for consideration the nominations for the eight vacancies in the Court of Appeals.[80]
The fault of Valenzuela was that it accorded no weight and due consideration to the confirmation of Justice Regalado. Valenzuela was weak, because it relied on interpretation to determine the intent of the framers rather than on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Much of the unfounded doubt about the President’s power to appoint during the period of prohibition in Section 15, Article VII could have been dispelled since its promulgation on November 9, 1998, had Valenzuela properly acknowledged and relied on the confirmation of a distinguished member of the Constitutional Commission like Justice Regalado.
Fourth. Of the 23 sections in Article VII, three (i.e., Section 14, Section15, and Section 16) concern the appointing powers of the President.
Section 14 speaks of the power of the succeeding President to revoke appointments made by an Acting President,[81] and evidently refers only to appointments in the Executive Department. It has no application to appointments in the Judiciary, because temporary or acting appointments can only undermine the independence of the Judiciary due to their being revocable at will.[82] The letter and spirit of the Constitution safeguard that independence. Also, there is no law in the books that authorizes the revocation of appointments in the Judiciary. Prior to their mandatory retirement or resignation, judges of the first and second level courts and the Justices of the third level courts may only be removed for cause, but the Members of the Supreme Court may be removed only by impeachment.
Section 16 covers only the presidential appointments that require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Thereby, the Constitutional Commission restored the requirement of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments after the requirement was removed from the 1973 Constitution. Yet, because of Section 9 of Article VIII, the restored requirement did not include appointments to the Judiciary.[83]
Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[84] It is absurd to assume that the framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was their intention in respect of appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily and surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most likely within Section 4 (1) thereof.
Fifth. To hold like the Court did in Valenzuela that Section 15 extends to appointments to the Judiciary further undermines the intent of the Constitution of ensuring the independence of the Judicial Department from the Executive and Legislative Departments. Such a holding will tie the Judiciary and the Supreme Court to the fortunes or misfortunes of political leaders vying for the Presidency in a presidential election. Consequently, the wisdom of having the new President, instead of the current incumbent President, appoint the next Chief Justice is itself suspect, and cannot ensure judicial independence, because the appointee can also become beholden to the appointing authority. In contrast, the appointment by the incumbent President does not run the same risk of compromising judicial independence, precisely because her term will end by June 30, 2010.
Sixth. The argument has been raised to the effect that there will be no need for the incumbent President to appoint during the prohibition period the successor of Chief Justice Puno within the context of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, because anyway there will still be about 45 days of the 90 days mandated in Section 4(1), Article VIII remaining.
The argument is flawed, because it is focused only on the coming vacancy occurring from Chief Justice Puno’s retirement by May 17, 2010. It ignores the need to apply Section 4(1) to every situation of a vacancy in the Supreme Court.
The argument also rests on the fallacious assumption that there will still be time remaining in the 90-day period under Section 4(1), Article VIII. The fallacy is easily demonstrable, as the OSG has shown in its comment.
Section 4 (3), Article VII requires the regular elections to be held on the second Monday of May, letting the elections fall on May 8, at the earliest, or May 14, at the latest. If the regular presidential elections are held on May 8, the period of the prohibition is 115 days. If such elections are held on May 14, the period of the prohibition is 109 days. Either period of the prohibition is longer than the full mandatory 90-day period to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court. The result is that there are at least 19 occasions (i.e., the difference between the shortest possible period of the ban of 109 days and the 90-day mandatory period for appointments) in which the outgoing President would be in no position to comply with the constitutional duty to fill up a vacancy in the Supreme Court. It is safe to assume that the framers of the Constitution could not have intended such an absurdity. In fact, in their deliberations on the mandatory period for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices under Section 4 (1), Article VIII, the framers neither discussed, nor mentioned, nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII, or its effects on the 90-day period, or vice versa. They did not need to, because they never intended Section 15, Article VII to apply to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, or in any of the lower courts.
Seventh. As a matter of fact, in an extreme case, we can even raise a doubt on whether a JBC list is necessary at all for the President – any President – to appoint a Chief Justice if the appointee is to come from the ranks of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 9, Article VIII says:
xxx. The Members of the Supreme Court xxx shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for any vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
xxx
The provision clearly refers to an appointee coming into the Supreme Court from the outside, that is, a non-member of the Court aspiring to become one. It speaks of candidates for the Supreme Court, not of those who are already members or sitting justices of the Court, all of whom have previously been vetted by the JBC.
Can the President, therefore, appoint any of the incumbent Justices of the Court as Chief Justice?
The question is not squarely before us at the moment, but it should lend itself to a deeper analysis if and when circumstances permit. It should be a good issue for the proposed Constitutional Convention to consider in the light of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s statement that the President can appoint the Chief Justice from among the sitting justices of the Court even without a JBC list.
II
The Judiciary Act of 1948
The posture has been taken that no urgency exists for the President to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno, considering that the Judiciary Act of 1948 can still address the situation of having the next President appoint the successor.
Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 states:
Section 12. Vacancy in Office of Chief Justice. — In case of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or of his inability to perform the duties and powers of his office, they shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in precedence, until such disability is removed, or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified. This provision shall apply to every Associate Justice who succeeds to the office of Chief Justice.
The provision calls for an Acting Chief Justice in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice, or in the event that the Chief Justice is unable to perform his duties and powers. In either of such circumstances, the duties and powers of the office of the Chief Justice shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in precedence until a new Chief Justice is appointed or until the disability is removed.
Notwithstanding that there is no pressing need to dwell on this peripheral matter after the Court has hereby resolved the question of consequence, we do not find it amiss to confront the matter now.
We cannot agree with the posture.
A review of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII shows that the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, who all shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy, which appointments require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. With reference to the Chief Justice, he or she is appointed by the President as Chief Justice, and the appointment is never in an acting capacity. The express reference to a Chief Justice abhors the idea that the framers contemplated an Acting Chief Justice to head the membership of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they would have simply written so in the Constitution. Consequently, to rely on Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 in order to forestall the imperative need to appoint the next Chief Justice soonest is to defy the plain intent of the Constitution.
For sure, the framers intended the position of Chief Justice to be permanent, not one to be occupied in an acting or temporary capacity. In relation to the scheme of things under the present Constitution, Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 only responds to a rare situation in which the new Chief Justice is not yet appointed, or in which the incumbent Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties and powers of the office. It ought to be remembered, however, that it was enacted because the Chief Justice appointed under the 1935 Constitution was subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, and the confirmation process might take longer than expected.
The appointment of the next Chief Justice by the incumbent President is preferable to having the Associate Justice who is first in precedence take over. Under the Constitution, the heads of the Legislative and Executive Departments are popularly elected, and whoever are elected and proclaimed at once become the leaders of their respective Departments. However, the lack of any appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the independence of the Judiciary, because the Chief Justice is the head of the entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice performs functions absolutely significant to the life of the nation. With the entire Supreme Court being the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Tribunal. There being no obstacle to the appointment of the next Chief Justice, aside from its being mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be appointed by the next President.
Historically, under the present Constitution, there has been no wide gap between the retirement and the resignation of an incumbent Chief Justice, on one hand, and the appointment to and assumption of office of his successor, on the other hand. As summarized in the comment of the OSG, the chronology of succession is as follows:
1. When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Chief Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day;
2. When Chief Justice Yap retired on July 1, 1988, Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed on the same day;
3. When Chief Justice Fernan resigned on December 7, 1991, Chief Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day, December 8, 1991;
4. When Chief Justice Narvasa retired on November 29, 1998, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. was sworn into office the following early morning of November 30, 1998;
5. When Chief Justice Davide retired on December 19, 2005, Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed the next day, December 20, 2005; and
6. When Chief Justice Panganiban retired on December 6, 2006, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno took his oath as Chief Justice at midnight of December 6, 2006.[85]
III
Writ of mandamus does not lie against the JBC
May the JBC be compelled to submit the list of nominees to the President?
Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.[86] It is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officer. Mandamus is not available to direct the exercise of a judgment or discretion in a particular way.[87]
For mandamus to lie, the following requisites must be complied with: (a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (e) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Section 8(5) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the JBC to submit a list of at least three nominees to the President for every vacancy in the Judiciary:
Section 8. xxx
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. xxx
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.
However, Section 4(1) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, and within 90 days from the submission of the list, in the case of the lower courts. The 90-day period is directed at the President, not at the JBC. Thus, the JBC should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court before the occurrence of the vacancy.
Under the Constitution, it is mandatory for the JBC to submit to the President the list of nominees to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court in order to enable the President to appoint one of them within the 90-day period from the occurrence of the vacancy. The JBC has no discretion to submit the list to the President after the vacancy occurs, because that shortens the 90-day period allowed by the Constitution for the President to make the appointment. For the JBC to do so will be unconscionable on its part, considering that it will thereby effectively and illegally deprive the President of the ample time granted under the Constitution to reflect on the qualifications of the nominees named in the list of the JBC before making the appointment.
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the President’s mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates whose names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies within the discretion of the JBC. The object of the petitions for mandamus herein should only refer to the duty to submit to the President the list of nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because in order to constitute unlawful neglect of duty, there must be an unjustified delay in performing that duty.[88] For mandamus to lie against the JBC, therefore, there should be an unexplained delay on its part in recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in submitting the list to the President.
The distinction between a ministerial act and a discretionary one has been delineated in the following manner:
The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.[89]
Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to grant the petitions for mandamus and to issue a writ of mandamus against the JBC. The actions for that purpose are premature, because it is clear that the JBC still has until May 17, 2010, at the latest, within which to submit the list of nominees to the President to fill the vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno.
IV
Writ of prohibition does not lie against the JBC
In light of the foregoing disquisitions, the conclusion is ineluctable that only the President can appoint the Chief Justice. Hence, Soriano’s petition for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032, which proposes to prevent the JBC from intervening in the process of nominating the successor of Chief Justice Puno, lacks merit.
On the other hand, the petition for prohibition in G.R. No. 191342 is similarly devoid of merit. The challenge mounted against the composition of the JBC based on the allegedly unconstitutional allocation of a vote each to the ex officio members from the Senate and the House of Representatives, thereby prejudicing the chances of some candidates for nomination by raising the minimum number of votes required in accordance with the rules of the JBC, is not based on the petitioners’ actual interest, because they have not alleged in their petition that they were nominated to the JBC to fill some vacancies in the Judiciary. Thus, the petitioners lack locus standi on that issue.
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Dismisses the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 191002 and G.R. No. 191149, and the petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 191057 for being premature;
2. Dismisses the petitions for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032 and G.R. No. 191342 for lack of merit; and
3. Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC and, accordingly, directs the Judicial and Bar Council:
(a) To resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill the vacancy to be created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010;
(b) To prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice;
(c) To submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or before May 17, 2010; and
(d) To continue its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and submit to the President the short list of nominees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Filed on February 9, 2010.
[2] Begun on February 23, 2010.
[3] Initiated on February 10, 2010.
[4] Commenced on February 11, 2010.
[5] Dated February 15, 2010.
[6] Filed on March 8, 2010.
[7] A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998, 298 SCRA 408.
[8] Petition in G.R. No. 191002, pp. 3-4.
[9] Id., p. 5.
[10] Petition in G.R. No. 191032, pp. 4-8.
[11] Petition in G.R. No. 191057, pp. 1-2.
[12] Id., p. 11.
[13] Petition in G.R. No. 191149.
[14] Petition in G.R. No. 191342.
[15] http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/announcements/JBCreCJ.pdf
[16] http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/announcements/jbc_announce_2009/jan22%20%2710.pdf
[17] Comment of the JBC, p. 3.
[18] Id.
[19] Id., pp. 4-5.
[20] Id., p. 5.
[21] Id.
[22] Id., p. 6.
[23] Petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC, pp. 5-6.
[24] Comment of the JBC, p. 6.
[25] Id., p. 7; bold emphasis is in the original text.
[26] Comment of the OSG, pp. 13-14.
[27] Id., p. 14.
[28] Id., p. 15.
[29] Id., pp. 20-24.
[30] Id., pp. 25-27.
[31] Id., pp. 29-30.
[32] Id.
[33] Id., pp. 32-33.
[34] Id., pp. 34-35.
[35] Id.
[36] Id., pp. 35-36. The OSG posits:
National interest compels the President to make such appointment for it is particularly during this crucial period when national leaders are seeking fresh mandates from the people that the Supreme Court, more than at any other time, represents stability. Hence, a full court is ideal to ensure not only due deliberation on and careful consideration of issues but also expeditious disposition of cases.
Indeed, such function becomes especially significant in view of the fact that this is the first time that the whole country will experience automated elections.
[37] Id., pp. 36-37. The OSG stresses:
The possible fallouts or serious aftermath of allowing a vacuum in the position of the Chief Justice may be greater and riskier than the consequences or repercussions of inaction. Needless to state, the appointment of the Chief Justice of this Honorable Court (sic) is the most important appointment vested by the 1987 Constitution to (sic) the President.
[38] Id., p. 37.
[39] Id., p. 38.
[40] Filed by Atty. Pitero M. Reig.
[41] Black’s Law Dictionary, 941 (6th Ed. 1991).
[42] G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003, 402 SCRA 612.
[43] Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, 246 SCRA 540, 562-563, citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 633 (1962).
[44] Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra; Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000; 342 SCRA 449, 478.
[45] 65 Phil. 56.
[46] G.R. No. 117, November 7, 1945 (Unreported).
[47] G.R. No. 2947, January 11, 1959 (Unreported).
[48] 77 Phil. 1012 (1947).
[49] 110 Phil. 331 (1960).
[50] 84 Phil. 368 (1949)
[51] E.g., Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152 (in which the Court ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi); Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680, 138698, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449 (in which the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review” of the Visiting Forces Agreement); Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 739 (in which the Court, albeit conceding that the petitioners might not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers without a showing that Balikatan 02-01 involved the exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers, reiterated Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora, declaring that cases of transcendental importance must be settled promptly and definitely and the standing requirements may be relaxed); and Osmeña v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 100318, 100308, 100417,100420, July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 750 (in which the Court held that where serious constitutional questions were involved, the transcendental importance to the public of the cases demanded that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure).
[52] L-No. 40004, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275.
[53] E.g., Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27 (in which the Court held that it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen interested in the execution of the law, because the question is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public right, and the people are the real party-in-interest); Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 530 (in which the Court declared that where an assertion of a public right is involved, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen and is part of the general public which possesses the right); Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Tan, L. No. 81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 (in which the Court disregarded objections to taxpayers’ lack of personality to sue in determining the validity of the VAT Law); Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989, 175 SCRA 264 (in which the Court pronounced that although no expenditure of public funds was involved in the questioned contract, the petitioner was nonetheless clothed with the legal personality under the disclosure provision of the Constitution to question it, considering its important role in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved, indicating that public interest was definitely involved); and Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343 (in which the Court ruled that it had the discretion to waive the requirement of locus standi in determining the validity of the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, although the petitioners were not, strictly speaking, covered by the definition of proper party).
[54] David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160.
[55] 275 Ky 91, 120 SW2d 765 (1938).
[56] 19 Wend. 56 (1837).
[57] 232 NC 48, 59 SE2d 359 (1950).
[58] Bold emphasis is in the original text.
[59] Petition in G.R. No. 191032, p. 2.
[60] Petition in G.R. No. 191057, pp. 3-4; citing the cases of PHILCONSA v. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479; PHILCONSA v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506; and Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160.
[61] Petition in G.R. No. 191342, pp. 2-3.
[62] See, for instance, Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81 (where the petitioner questioned the validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in law enforcement, asserting that IBP was the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, but the Court held that the IBP had not shown that it was so tasked: “In this case, a reading of the petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents. Moreover, because peace and order are under constant threat and lawless violence occurs in increasing tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the Mindanao insurgency problem, the legal controversy raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away. It will stare us in the face again. It, therefore, behooves the Court to relax the rules on standing and to resolve the issue now, rather than later”, and went on to resolve the issues because the petitioner advanced constitutional issues that deserved the attention of the Court in view of their seriousness, novelty, and weight as precedents).
[63] Supra, note 42, p. 645.
[64] Id.
[65] See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 113-118 (1976); Regional Rail Reoganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138-148 (1974).
[66] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., p. 912, October 12, 1998.
[67] Supra, note 6, p. 426-427, stating:
Considering the respective reasons for the time frames for filling vacancies in the courts and the restriction on the President’s power of appointment, it is this Court’s view that, as a general proposition, in case of conflict, the former should yield to the latter. Surely, the prevention of vote-buying and similar evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of some cases. Temporary vacancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, comes to exist only once in every six years. Moreover, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled temporarily by designation. But prohibited appointments are long-lasting and permanent in their effects. They may, as earlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their making is considered an election offense.
To the contention that may perhaps be asserted, that Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII should prevail over Section 15 of Article VII, because they may be considered later expressions of the people when they adopted the Constitution, it suffices to point out that the Constitution must be construed in its entirety as one, single, instrument.
To be sure, instances may be conceived of the imperative need for an appointment, during the period of the ban, not only in the executive but also in the Supreme Court. This may be the case should the membership of the court be so reduced that it will have no quorum or should the voting on a particularly important question requiring expeditious resolution be evenly divided. Such a case, however, is covered by neither Section 15 of Article VII nor Section 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII.
[68] Id., pp. 422-423.
[69] Id., p. 423.
[70] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., pp. 632-633.
[71] Dizon v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-18615, December 24, 1963, 9 SCRA 714.
[72] Crawford, Earl. T., The Construction of Statutes, Thomas Law Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, 262-264 (1940).
[73] Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, G.R. No. 170735, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 456, 472; citing Escosura v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 4 SCRA 285, (1962).
[74] According to Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984): “Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification.” The special justification for the reversal of Valenzuela lies in its intrinsic unsoundness.
[75] No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1.
[76] Supra, note 6, pp. 424-426; bold underscoring supplied for emphasis.
[77] Aytona v. Castillo, supra, note 74, pp. 8-10 (N.B. - In the time material to Aytona, there were judges of the Court of First Instance who were appointed to districts that had no vacancies, because the incumbents had not qualified for other districts to which they had been supposedly transferred or promoted; at any rate, the appointments still required confirmation by the Commission on Appointments).
[78] Crawford, op. cit., supra, note 72, pp. 248-249.
[79] Supra, note 6, p. 413.
[80] Id.
[81] Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.
[82] Cruz, I., Philippine Political Law, 253 (2002); also Rilloraza v. Vargas, 80 Phil. 297 (1948).
[83] Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V., p. 908, which indicates that in his sponsorship speech delivered on October 12, 1986 on the floor of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Teofisto Guingona explained that “[a]ppointments to the judiciary shall not be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.”
[84] Rodriguez, Statutory Construction, 171 (1999).
[85] Comment of the OSG, p. 37.
[86] Section 3, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[87] JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000, 345 SCRA 143.
[88] Nery v. Gamolo, A.M. No. P-01-1508, February 7, 2003, 397 SCRA 110, citing Musni v. Morales, 315 SCRA 85, 86 (1999).
[89] Espiridion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146933, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 273.
. No. 146933, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 273.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)