Article VIII : The Judiciary

Note that what triggered Renato Corona’s appointment to Chief Justice was because of the retirement of
then Chief Justice Reynato Puno scheduled on May 17, 2010. The vacancy of the highest position in
Supreme Court provided then-President Arroyo the opportunity to fill that vacancy.
Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution lays down the responsibilities and duties entrusted upon the
Judicial branch of government. Section 4. (1) mandates the composition of the Supreme court and the
prescriptive period when a vacancy should be filled.
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.

Also, Section 8.(5) and 9 of Article VIII defines the functions of the Judicial Bar and Council. One of JBC’s
functions is to present to the President a list of nominees for any vacancy within the judiciary for appointment
consideration. To quote:
Section 8.(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It
may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the 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.

Despite the public inputs from Chief Justice Renato Puno and the suggestion of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile,
the Philippine Bar Association opposed the move citing Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (which also
known as Republic Act 296) which states that the function of the CJ will devolve to the highest ranking
Associate Justice.
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.

RA 296 had been replaced with the the Judiciary Re-Organization Act of 1980 (BP 129). Nevertheless,
Section 12 of RA 296 was not repealed and is still indicated as Section 5 of BP 129.
Section 5. Succession to Office of Presiding Justice. – In case of a vacancy in the absence of inability to
perform the powers, functions, and duties of his office, the associate Justice who is first in precedence shall
perform his powers, functions, and duties until such disability is removed, or another Presiding Justice is
appointed and has qualified.

EO No. 2:
“…only covers appointments in departments, agencies, and government owned and controlled corporations
and does not include the judiciary.”
Revocation does not include the Judicial branch.

The Supreme Court effectively ruled that if the framers of the 1987 Constitution had intended Article VII,
Section 15 to include the member of the Judiciary, they would have written it so but did not. Thereby ruling
that the entire article is limited to the Executive branch only. Note also that in the decision, the Supreme
Court quoted the separation of powers doctrine espoused by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as lifted
from the Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission. The SC also said that the
very creation of the JBC points to the intent of the framers to exclude the judiciary from Articles VII, section
14, 15 and 16.

Can a new President (Aquino) revoke the appointment of any member of the Judiciary citing Article
VII Section 14?
The SC ruled that since it also follows that a separate mandate was espoused in Article VIII, 8.(5) and 9 is
specific to the Judiciary, the power of the President to revoke appointments is limited only to Executive
positions. Because if it were extended to the Judiciary, it creates a precedent that acting Justice positions
can be revocable at will by the President. It will therefore undermine the independence of the judiciary.
Furthermore, the SC states that there is an absence of legal literature (perhaps even outside of the
Philippines) that approves revoking the appointment of a member of the Judiciary. There is no legal
precedent on the matter.

The SC also cited history that there has been no prolonged wait to appoint the CJ even in the
retirements and resignations of former Chief Justices in their successions:
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.

Can we then afford to delay the appointment of a vacancy of the position of Chief Justice?
The Supreme Court ruled no. They took the consideration that it was in an election period and would
necessitate that the function and duties of the Chief Justice ensures leadership within the judiciary
especially as he sits as chair of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. To quote:
“…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.”
“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,”