Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 275 views

    Writing Sample 1: Law Paper (Philippines) : Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    President Arroyo is prohibited from appointing the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Philippine Constitution. [1] The Constitution bans the President from making appointments in the two months before the expiration of their term. [2] As the current Chief Justice will retire with only 44 days left in Arroyo's term, any appointment she makes would fall within the prohibited "midnight" period. [3] Suggestions for Arroyo to pre-appoint a "Chief Justice in waiting" are also invalid, as appointments can only be made to vacant positions according to legal precedents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Writing Sample 1: Law Paper (Philippines) : Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    275 views4 pages
    President Arroyo is prohibited from appointing the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Philippine Constitution. [1] The Constitution bans the President from making appointments in the two months before the expiration of their term. [2] As the current Chief Justice will retire with only 44 days left in Arroyo's term, any appointment she makes would fall within the prohibited "midnight" period. [3] Suggestions for Arroyo to pre-appoint a "Chief Justice in waiting" are also invalid, as appointments can only be made to vacant positions according to legal precedents.

    Original Title

    Writing Sample 1.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    President Arroyo is prohibited from appointing the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Philippine Constitution. [1] The Constitution bans the President from making appointments in the two months before the expiration of their term. [2] As the current Chief Justice will retire with only 44 days left in Arroyo's term, any appointment she makes would fall within the prohibited "midnight" period. [3] Suggestions for Arroyo to pre-appoint a "Chief Justice in waiting" are also invalid, as appointments can only be made to vacant positions according to legal precedents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    275 views4 pages

    Writing Sample 1: Law Paper (Philippines) : Memorandum

    Uploaded by

    Aj Guadalupe de Mata
    President Arroyo is prohibited from appointing the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Philippine Constitution. [1] The Constitution bans the President from making appointments in the two months before the expiration of their term. [2] As the current Chief Justice will retire with only 44 days left in Arroyo's term, any appointment she makes would fall within the prohibited "midnight" period. [3] Suggestions for Arroyo to pre-appoint a "Chief Justice in waiting" are also invalid, as appointments can only be made to vacant positions according to legal precedents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that President Arroyo is constitutionally prohibited from appointing a new Chief Justice due to the 'midnight appointment' ban, and the new President should make the appointment instead.

    The main issue discussed is whether President Arroyo should appoint a new Chief Justice given that the current Chief Justice will retire shortly before the end of her term.

    The arguments for President Arroyo appointing a new Chief Justice are that it is important to have a functioning Supreme Court, while the arguments against are that it would violate the constitutional prohibition on 'midnight appointments'.

    Writing Sample 1: Law Paper (Philippines)

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: ​Atty. XXX ​DATE:​ March 15, 2010

    FROM:​ Annamarie Junel G. de Mata


    1E

    We reply to your request for a legal memorandum on whether President Gloria Arroyo should
    appoint a new chief justice. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes the analysis of the
    relevant laws and jurisprudence.

    Statement of Facts

    Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno will retire on May 17, 2010 upon reaching the age of 70, 44 days
    until the end of President Arroyo’s term. On the said date, there will be a vacancy in the position
    of chief justice. Anticipating said vacancy, Representative Matias Defensor, Jr., a member of the
    Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) moved for the JBC to start the process of nominating applicants
    for chief justice and to submit to the President a list of three (3) nominees for the position.
    However, considering that the vacancy on May 17 leaves President Arroyo only 44 days of
    office, any appointment she will make within the said period falls within the prohibition on
    midnight appointment as provided in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.

    Since the Constitution provides for a two-month ban on appointments by the president before
    her term expires, GMA is said to be prohibited from making appointments from March 10 to
    June 30, 2010. Representative Defensor, however, opines that the president should appoint the
    next chief justice given that:

    1. There should always be a functioning Supreme Court composed of a Chief


    Justice and fourteen Associate Justices.
    2. The Chief Justice is required to personally certify every decision rendered by the
    Supreme Court.
    3. Without the Chief justice, the Supreme Court cannot exist.
    4. The Supreme Court cannot have a temporary Chief Justice in a crucial period
    such as presidential elections.
    5. Once there is a failure of elections, the four highest officials of the land will be out
    in office; and once there is no chief justice, nobody can run the country for in the
    1935 Constitution, the Chief Justice follows the succession.

    The palace also insists that the President should appoint the next chief justice despite strong
    oppositions by the President’s critics and the position taken by the Integrated Bar of the
    Philippines (IBP) and some retired justices of the Supreme Court that the President cannot
    appoint the next chief justice for it will violate the constitutional provision. This is in view of
    Section 4 (1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that:

    The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. ** **.
    Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

    Due to these conflicting views regarding the appointment of the next chief justice, some sectors
    suggested that the President should appoint a chief-justice-in waiting before the start of the ban
    or before March 10 so when Chief Justice Puno retires, his replacement could immediately
    assume office.

    Discussion

    The constitutional provision governing the prohibition is Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987
    Constitution which provides that:

    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.

    A reading of the said provision reveals that the president is proscribed from making
    appointments two months before his/her term expires. However, there is an exception:
    “temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
    public service or endanger public safety.” It should be noted that the position of chief justice is
    not an executive provision and therefore does not fall within the exception.

    Given that the occurrence of vacancy in the position of chief justice is on May 17 or 44 days
    before President Arroyo’s term expires, she is prohibited from making any appointment within
    that period pursuant to the above provision. The two-month ban is expressly stated in the said
    provision and therefore should be construed in its literal sense.
    As to the suggestions of other sectors for President Arroyo to appoint a chief-justice-in-waiting
    who will assume Chief Justice Puno’s position once he retires is simply not allowed. There are
    several decided cases stating that in order for an appointment to be valid, the position should be
    vacant. Among these cases are ​Costin vs. Quimbo and ​Morata vs. Court of Appeals. ​In ​Costin​,
    it is ruled that no matter how qualified a person is for a particular position, he/she still cannot be
    appointed to a position that is not vacant. Meanwhile, in ​Morata​, the court ruled that any
    appointment to a position that is not vacant is void ​ab initio. Following jurisprudence, if President
    Arroyo will appoint a chief-justice-in-waiting, said appointment is void and therefore cannot be
    enforced.

    In the 1962 case of ​Aytona vs. Castillo,​ the Supreme court had the occasion to struck down as
    illegal the so called “midnight appointments” issued by President Carlos P. Garcia. All in all,
    about three hundred fifty (350) "midnight" or "last minute" appointments. Said appointments
    were revoked by President Macapagal by issuing Administrative Order number 2.

    Another case which provides aspect of the danger of “midnight appointments” 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, Cabananatuan
    City. ​The question presented in this case was whether , during the period of the ban on
    appointments imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution, the President is
    nonetheless required to fill vacancies in the judiciary, in view of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article
    VIII. The Supreme Court held that in view of the period stated in Section 15, Article VII of the
    Constitution, the President is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to
    do so. The Court further held that Sections 4 (1) and 9, Article VIII of the Constitution should
    mean that the president is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frame provided
    unless prohibited by Section 15, Article VII. Following the doctrine laid down by this case,
    President Arroyo is banned from making any appointment during her remaining term as it falls
    within the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. Given said prohibition, she
    cannot invoke Section 4 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution.

    With regard the issue of the problem that might arise during the coming Presidential election,
    Constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas pointed out that the problems that can arise during the
    elections do not necessarily need a chief justice for the following reasons:

    1. Administrative matters go to the COMELEC first.


    2. Contests in local elections go to local courts first or to the Commission on Elections.
    3. Contests in congressional elections go to the Senate or House Electoral Tribunals where
    a Chief Justice does not participate.
    4. Presidential election contests go to the Supreme Court; but the Chief Justice is not the
    Supreme Court. At most his is only one vote out of fifteen.
    5. The same can be said about appeals to the SC of election cases. The quorum of the
    Court ​en banc​ is only eight, not fifteen.

    Moreover, as said vacancy will occur a week after the elections, the new President should then
    be the one to appoint the new chief justice. Since the new president will assume office on July
    1, he will still have 45 days within which to appoint the next chief justice. That is enough time for
    him to make the appointment given that the Constitution expressly states that vacancy should
    be filled within 90 days.

    Conclusion

    Given the constitutional provisions as well as jurisprudence above stated, President Arroyo
    therefore is precluded from appointing the next chief justice. As expressly stated by no less than
    the Constitution, “Midnight appointments” are strongly discouraged and forbidden.

    You might also like