o Gathering from the aforementioned, the majority opinion finds that the
In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano functions of said Committees are purely administrative in nature.
J. Padilla | October 5, 1988
Adm. Matter No. 88-7-1861-RTC
FACTS:
 Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano is an Executive Judge of the RTC of Bangui, Ilocos
Norte (Branch 19).
 EO RF6-04 which was issued on June 21, 1988 by the governor of Ilocos Norte
Rodolfo Farinas designated Judge Manzano as a member of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Committee on Justice (INPCJ for brevity), pursuant to Presidential EO
856.
 Judge Manzano proceeds to write a letter to the Supreme Court addressed to Chief
Justice Fernan a request for a resolution to:
1. Authorize him to accept the appointment and assume the discharge of
powers and duties attached to the position
2. Consider the membership in the INPCJ as inviolative of the independence
of the Judiciary and Sec. 12, Article VIII of the Constitution
3. Consider his membership in the INPCJ as part of the primary functions of
an Executive Judge.
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Judge Manzano’s appointment to the INPCJ is violative of the
Constitution and of the doctrine of separation of powers - YES
RULING:
 Judge Manzano cannot accept the appointment to the INPCJ as it is violative of
the Constitution (Article VIII, Section 12), and the doctrine of separation of powers
– hence, the court denied his request.
o Article VIII, Section 12 of the Constitution states that:
“Section 12: The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts
established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.”
o A reading of EO 856 (creation of Provincial/City Committees on Justice)
reveals that the same are created to insure speedy disposition of cases
of detainees, specifically poor and indigent ones, thus alleviating jail
congestion and improving jail conditions.
o Among the functions of Provincial/City Committees are:
 Receiving complaints against apprehending officers, wardens,
fiscals, or judges who are found to have committed abuses of
the discharges of their duties and refer the same to proper
authority for further action
 Recommending revisions of laws which are prejudicial to proper
administration of criminal justice
“Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and
control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare
and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy
of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency
by the organic law of its existence (Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and
Stevedoring Services Inc., vs. Tapucar, SP-07599-R, 29 September
1978).
o This is violative of Art. VIII, Sec. 12 of the Constitution stating that
members of the Supreme Court and other courts shall not be
designated to agencies performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions, and the doctrine of separation of powers.
 “While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory
not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of
government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot
justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a
position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is
implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from
its command.” (Garcia v Macaraig, 39 SCRA 106)
 GUTIERREZ, JR., J and MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: DISSENTING OPINIONS:
o Membership in the INPCJ does not involve administrative functions. In
fact, it does not involve regulation or control over the conduct and affairs
of individuals. Neither will it promulgate rules nor exercise quasi-judicial
and quasi-legislative functions.
o The work is purely advisory. There is nothing wrong with a member of the
judiciary joining Provincial/City Committees on Justice as long as the
group merely deliberates on problems involving speedy disposition of
cases for poor and needy litigants.
o “We who are Judges cannot operate in a vacuum or in a tight little world
of our own. The administration of justice can cannot be pigeonholed…
limiting our interaction to timidly peeping over these unnecessary and
impractical barriers into one another’s work all the while blaming the
Constitution for such quixotic and unreal interpretation.”
o The line drawn by the majority opinion is vague and unrealistic. The
constitutional provision is intended to shield Judges from
participating in activities which may compromise their
independence or hamper their work. Studying problems involving
the administration of justice and arriving at purely recommendatory
solutions do not in any way involve the encroachment of the
judiciary into executive or legislative functions or into matters which
are none of its concerns. Much less is it an encroachment of the
other departments into judicial affairs.
o The Judge should not shy away from public activities which do not
interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his office, but which,
in fact, enhance his effectiveness as a Judge.