Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

After sifting through the motions for reconsideration, I found that the arguments are largely the same

arguments that we have


passed upon, in one form or another, in the various petitions. Essentially, the issues boil down to justiciability; the conflict of
constitutional provisions; the merits of the cited constitutional deliberations; and the status and effect of the Valenzuela 1 ruling. Even
the motion for reconsideration of the Philippine Bar Association (G.R. No. 191420), whose petition I did not expressly touch upon in
my Separate Opinion, basically dwells on these issues.

I have addressed most, if not all, of these issues and I submit my Separate Opinion 2 as my basic response to the motions for
reconsideration, supplemented by the discussions below.

As I reflected in my Separate Opinion (which three other Justices joined),3 the election appointment ban under Article VII, Section 15
of the Constitution should not apply to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court whose period for appointment is
separately provided for under Article VIII, Section 4(1). I shared this conclusion with the Courts Decision although