The Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines
While I never claimed that I am among best law students in UP, unlike my friend Dianne de los Reyes, who graduated Magna cum Laude in political science and currently a member of UP Law’s Order of the Purple Feather honor society, I know I have taken pride several times of being a UP Law student on my blog posts.I honestly believed in good faith that, somehow, I am updated with binding Supreme Court jurisprudence. Upon reading the news of President Arroyo’s appointment of Justice Corona as the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, I firmly believe I owe my professors an apology.
My professors teach us law in the grand manner, as Oliver Wendell Holmes prescribed it. They do not fail to update us with recent developments on Philippine jurisprudence. I believe I have committed sins of omission on this matter. I neglected to verify what is the binding doctrine on the appointment to government office where there is still an incumbent. For the longest time, I honestly believed that appointments to offices, which are not vacant are null and void ab initio, as enshrined in Morata v. CA G.R. No. L-18978, May 25, 1964.
Likewise, I was in the absolute belief that an officer must be removed from the office first before a replacement can be appointed. In Costin v. Quimbo G.R. No. L-32271, January 27, 1983, the Court held that : “It is elementary in the law of public officers that no person, no matter how qualified and eligible he is for a certain position may be appointed to an office which is not vacant. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The incumbent must first be legally removed or his appointment validly terminated.”
I would like to beg for my professors’ forgiveness as I thought that these two Supreme Court decisions were still binding. The news of President Arroyo appointing Justice Corona while Chief Justice Puno is still in Office made me aware that what I thought as binding jurisprudence are now already bad law.
Perhaps, I owe Professor Santos, my professor in Legal Bibliography the biggest apology as I am not able to find the case which overturned the two abovementioned decisions. Professor Santos, I tried my best to locate the decision, which overturned these two using the various techniques you taught me such as using the SCRA Index and as last resort, the Lex Libris. I believe I do not deserve the 1.0 I got from your class as I was not able to find the legal basis behind President Arroyo’s appointment of a person to an office still occupied.
Although I am not able to find the legal basis where President Arroyo anchored her appointment of Justice Corona, I can proudly tell my professors that as of the moment, I am now informed that the binding doctrine is that an appointment can still be made even if the post is still occupied. I would like to inform Professor Gwen Grecia – De Vera, my professor in Legal History, that a development has been made yesterday in judicial history when the president appointed a Chief Justice while there is an incumbent one.
Again, I ask my professors forgiveness. Now I know that President Arroyo has just made a precedent, perhaps a dangerous one, by appointing a Chief Justice prior to the incumbent’s expiration of term.
Sincerely yours,
Pinoy Gossip Boy
Incoming Third Year
The College of Law
University of the Philippines – Diliman
Follow Pinoy Gossip Boy on Twitter and stay connected on Facebook for quicker updates!
One Comment
The President-Elect’s position on the Corona issue is very dangerous. The Supreme Court has already ruled WITH FINALITY that President Arroyo has the power to appoint the Chief Justice to replace the Hon. Reynante Puno.
The Supreme Court, as you know, is the final arbiter on constitutional issues. So whether or not somebody agrees with a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, once a decision becomes final and executory, that decision becomes part of the law of the land.
The President-Elect’s refusal to recognize this may lead to a constitutional crisis.
Moreover, it’s quite evident that the two (2) people around the President-Elect who are the loudest advocates of the hard-ball tact on the Corona appointment — namely former Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz and former Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo, are doing so because of vested personal interests.
It is obvious that Cruz and Marcelo are vocal against the Corona appointment only because they want to see Justice Antonio Carpio — the founder of their Law Office (Carpio, Villaraza, and Cruz; now known as Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo, and Angangco), to be chosen Chief Justice instead of Corona.