Vargas

8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
37
JORGE B. VARGAS, petitioner, vs. EMILIO RILLORAZA,

JOSE BERNABE, MANUEL ESCUDERO, Judges of
People's Court, and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DlSQUALIFICATION OF

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, GROUNDS FOR.—By
virtue either of Article VIII, section 13, or Article XVI,
section 2, of the Constitution, the grounds for
disqualifying judges, which had been held to include
justices of the Supreme Court (Jurado & Co. vs. Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 1 Phil., 395) were
those established in sections 8 and 608 of the former Code
of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court later promulgated
the present Rules of Court wherein Rule 126 treats of the
matter of disqualification of judicial officers. The
provisions of said rule have obviously been taken from. the
above-cited sections 8 and 608 of the same former Code of
Civil Procedure (see also II Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 2d ed., pp. 779-782). By reason of the fact
that the aforementioned provisions of the former Code of
Civil Procedure were continued by the constitution itself,
either as rules of court or as laws or statutes, there can be
no question of unconstitutionality or repugnancy of said
provisions to the constitution as regards the
disqualification of judicial officers. In other words, the
framers deemed it fit, right, and proper that said
provisions shall continue to govern the disqualification of
judicial officers.
298
298 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Vargas vs. Rilloraza
2. ID.; ID.; ACT REPUGNANT TO CONSTITUTION

CANNOT BECOME LAW.—No act of the legislature
repugnant to the constitution can become a law.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165862cfde741d6f467003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/77
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PEOPLE'S COURT ACT, SECTION 14,

REPUGNANT TO CONSTITUTION.—To discover
whether section 14 of the People's Court Act, quoted in the
opinion, is repugnant to the constitution, one of the best
tests would be to compare the operation of the pertinent
constitutional provisions without said section, with their
operation with the same section if the latter were to be
allowed to produce its effects. It is self-evident that before
the enactment of said section of the People's Court Act, it
was not only the power but the bounden duty of all the
members of the Supreme Court to sit in judgment in all
treason cases duly brought or appealed to the court. That
power and that duty arise from Article VIII of the
Constitution, particularly section 4, providing how the
court shall be composed and how it may sit, section 9,
ordaining that they shall hold office during good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years, or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office, and
the pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions
bearing 011 the jurisdiction. powers and responsibilities of
the Supreme Court, Concretely referring to the instant
case, if section 14 of the People's Court Act had not been
inserted therein, there can be no question that each and
every member of this court would have to sit in judgment
in said case. But if said section 14 were to be effective,
such members of the court "who held any office or position
under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the
government called Philippine Republic" would be
disqualified from sitting and voting in the instant case, -
because the accused herein is a person who likewise held
an office or position at least under the Philippine
Executive Commission. In other words, what the
constitution in this respect ordained as a power and a duty
to be exercised and fulfilled by said members of the court,
said section of the People's Court Act would prohibit them
from exercising and fulfilling. What the constitution
directs the section prohibits. A clearer case of repugnancy
to the fundamental law can hardly be imagined.
4. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ACTUAL REMOVAL NOT

NECESSARY TO REPUGNANCY.—For repugnancy to
result it is not necessary that there should be an actual
removal of the disqualified Justice from his office for were
it not for section 14 of the People's Court Act there would
have been an uninterrupted continuity in the tenure of the
displaced Justice and in his exercise
299
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 299
of the powers and fulfillment of the duties appertaining to

his office, saving only proper cases of disqualification
under Rule 126. What matters here is not only that the
Justice affected continue to be a member of the court and
to enjoy the emoluments as well as to exercise the other
powers and fulfill the other duties of his office, but that he
be left unhampered to exercise all the powers and fulfill
all the responsibilities of said office in all cases properly
coming before his court under the constitution, again
without prejudice to proper cases of disqualification under
Rule 126. Any statute enacted by the legislature which
would impede him in this regard simply cannot become a
law.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES IN

CERTAIN TREASON CASES is DIMINUTION OF
JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT.—Under Article
VIII, section 2 (4) of the Constitution the Supreme Court
may not be deprived of its appellate jurisdiction, among
others, over those criminal cases where the penalty may
be death or life imprisonment. Treason may be punished
with death or life imprisonment. Pursuant to Article VIII,
sections 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Constitution the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court may only be exercised by the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices appointed by the President
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,
sitting in banc or in division, and in cases like those
involving treason they must sit in banc. If, according to
section 4 of said Article VIII, "the Supreme Court shall be
composed" of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices
therein referred to, its jurisdiction can only be exercised
by it as thus composed. To disqualify any of these
constitutional component members of the Court—
particularly, as in the instant case/ a majority of them—in
a treason case, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the
Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the
fundamental law. Disqualification of a judge is a
deprivation of his judicial power.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF

LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS.—Some of the Justices
affected by the prohibition in section 14 of the People's
Court Act have no quarrel with legislative authority to

enumerate instances in which judges may not sit. They
would even concede that. But, they say, let the rules be
promulgated before the event happens or litigation arises.
To promulgate them after, would enable the Congress in
specific situations to order that Judge X shall not decide
the controversy between Y and Z or that Justice M shall
not sit in the appeal of P. S. and so on ad infinitum, and
thus decisively influence the decision, for or against
300
one party litigant. Such legislative power might thus be

wielded to interfere with the functions of the judiciary,
depriving Philippine citizens of their right to impartial
awards from judges selected without any reference to the
parties or interests to be affected. Unnecessary to prove or
impute sinister motives behind the statutory
disqualification. Enough that recognition of the power
might give way to the operation of unworthy combinations
or oppressive designs.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JUSTICES TO BE APPOINTED

ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTION.—In the face of the
constitutional requirement (Art. VIII, section 5) that the
members of the Supreme Court should (shall) be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, no person not so appointed
may act as Justice of the Supreme Court and the
"designation" authorized in section 14 of the People's
Court Act to be made by the President of any judge of first
instance, judge-at-large of first instance or cadastral judge
can not possibly be a compliance with the provision
requiring that appointment, An additional disqualifying
circumstance of the "designee" is the lack of confirmation
by or consent of the Commission 011 Appointments. It
may happen that a "designee," sitting as a substitute
Justice of the Supreme Court in particular collaboration
cases, and participating therein in the deliberations and
functions of the Supreme Court, like any regular Justice
thereof, does not possess the required constitutional
qualifications of a regular member of said court. Here
again is an other point of repugnancy between the
challenged section and the constitution.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PERMANENT COMPOSITION OF

SUPREME COURT.—No temporary composition of the
Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution. This
tribunal, as established under the organic law, is one of
the permanent institutions of the government. The clause
"unless otherwise provided by law" found in section 4 of
Article VIII can not be construed to authorize any
legislation which would alter the composition of the
Supreme Court, as determined by the constitution, for
however brief a time as may be imagined. In principle,
what really matters is not the length or shortness of the
alteration of the constitutional composition of the Court,
but the very permanence and unalterability of that
composition so long as the constitution which ordains it
remains permanent and unaltered. Said clause refers to
the number of Justices who were to compose the Court
upon its initial organization under the Commonwealth,
and the manner of its sitting; that is, the legislature, when
providing for the initial
301
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 301
organization of the Supreme Court under the

Commonwealth, was authorized to fix a different number
of Justices than eleven, and determine the manner of the
Court's sitting differently from that established in section
4 of Article VIII of the Constitution, but it was and is not
empowered to alter the qualifications of the Justices and
the mode of their appointment, which are matters
governed by sections 5 and 6 of said Article VIII wherein
the clause "unless otherwise provided by law" does not
even exist, nor the provision on who shall be the
component members, of the court.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TEMPORARY JUSTICES OF

SUPREME COURT.—A part of the membership (a
minority) of the Court believes that the act of the United
States Congress dated February 6, 1905, is still in force by
virtue of Article XVI, section 2, of the Constitution, and
should still be applied to cases of "temporary disability * *
* or vacancies occurring" and preventing a quorum of the
Supreme Court.
Per PERFECTO J., concurring:
10. MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.—

Judicial qualifications and disqualifications are matters
basically constitutional. They go to the very roots and the
existence of the judiciary established by our people:
Congress can not legislate on judicial disqualification
without jeopardizing judicial independence.
11. LAWS OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.—In granting the

Supreme Court the rule making power, the Constitutional
Convention did not have in mind considering specific
statutory provisions on judicial procedure.
12. FIGHT FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.—In less than

a year this is the second time we are compelled to come
out to fight for judicial independence as one of the political
values that should be treasured permanently.
13. SECTION 14 OF ACT 682 NULL AND VOID.—Section 14

of Act 682, so far as it provides for disqualification of
certain justices of the Supreme Court, is null and void,
and without effect, because: (1) it is utterly wrong as a
matter of principle; (2) it violates the Constitution of the
Philippines; and (3) it destroys the judicial independence
of the Supreme Court.
14. TRIAL OF MARSHAL PETAIN.—Mongibaux, the former

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Vichy
government, was the one who tried, judged, and sentenced
Marshal Petain. No one cast doubt as to his impartiality,
character, and integrity. No one disputed the wisdom and
justice of his decision, condemning as guilty of
collaboration the head of the Vichy Government.
302
15. AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.—Section 14 of

Act 682, in the cases mentioned therein, amends the
Constitution by adding a new qualification to those
mentioned in Article VIII, section 6, of the Constitution.
That amendment cannot be effected by legislation.
16. INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS.—Article

VIII, section 8, of the Constitution, provides that Congress
"shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of inferior
courts." Under the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius, Congress is without power to prescribe the
qualifications or disqualifications of justices of the
Supreme Court.
17. REMOVAL OF JUSTICES.—The members of the

Supreme Court, once qualified and had taken their oath of
office, may be removed only by impeachment according to
the procedure prescribed in Article IX of the Constitution.
18. POLITICAL BLUNDER OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.

—President Roosevelt, with all the admiration and
profound respect we entertain for him, committed a great
blunder when he proposed to pack the United States
Supreme Court with additional new and younger
members. All the believers in democratic institutions are
glad that the proposal met defeat.
19. PRINCIPLE ESSENTIALLY WRONG.—The wrong

committed by President Roosevelt was one by addition;
that committed by section 14 of Act 682 is by subtraction.
Whether by addition or subtraction, the principle is
essentially wrong, unjust, subversive, destructive of the
principle of separation of powers. It will, ultimately, turn
the Supreme Court as a mere appendix of Congress,
subject to the whims of the leaders of the same.
20. OUR REFUSAL.—We refuse absolutely to sanction or to

take part in such a governmental framework where the
highest tribunal of the land will not be more than a
mocking shadow of judicial power.
21. CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT.—No power in

government should try, directly or indirectly, to control
the manner by which the Supreme Court and its members
should administer justice. The only power that can control
their acts is the power of their own consciences, with the
object of their function as an eternal guiding star: justice,
with all its overpowering moral and divine force.
22. JUSTICE.—Cicero, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle

extol justice as the most excellent and greatest among all
virtues.
28. THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF GREAT THINKERS.—

There are thoughts and ideas bequeathed to us by great
thinkers which remain fresh and young through the ages

and centuries, like the flesh
303
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 303
of the wooly mammoth, buried in the Russian tundras,

which today can still be eaten, although the beasts died in
the prehistoric darkness of remote antiquity. Those are
the thoughts and ideas insufflated with the vitality of
eternal truth. They spring from the minds of the geniuses
with which nature, once in a while, blesses certain epochs,
to be the intellectual leaders of mankind for all time.
24. FORERUNNERS OF THE ERA OF ATOMIC ENERGY.—

Democritus, Aristotle, the medieval alchemists, Galileo
and Newton are the forerunners of the Era of Atomic
Energy, the most revolutionary in the history of mankind,
just ushered by the works of the Pleiad of modern
physicists who contributed to the production of the atomic
bomb.
25. JUSTICE HOLMES READ ARISTOTLE.—The ignorants

and retrogrades will never understand it; but it is a fact
that in the summit of his glorious career, Justice Holmes,
the greatest judge of modern times, continued reading
Aristotle. To free themselves from the sorrows they feel
with the surrounding market of vulgarity, where pygmies
and riffraffs dominate, great minds seek enjoyment in the
company of their kind. Eagles will not be happy in the
society of flies and mosquitoes. That explains the calibre of
the friends Rizal had in Europe.
26. TIME AND STUDY NEEDED.—Deep thinking and study,

matured deliberation, and ample and long discussion are
needed before the Supreme Court could do full justice in
disposing of a question of far-reaching importance raised
before us for 'the first time.
27. VOTE RESERVED.—Wanting to "have an opportunity of

studying further the question, of thinking more on it and,
at least, for a solitary self-discussion, having been
deprived of the benefits of a full deliberation with our
brethren assemble in a collective body, we reserved our
vote until the resolution could be reduced in writing.
28. NULL AND VOID.—The designation of the five judges of

first instance to sit in this Supreme Court as acting
Justices in the place of the Chief Justice and Four Justices
who inhibited themselves is, under the Constitution, null
and void.
29. OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.—The

existence, constitution, and organization of the Supreme
Court as provided in the fundamental law of the land, are
matters that cannot be the subject of laws enacted by the
legislative power.
30. APPOINTMENT.—According to section 5 of Article VIII of

the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court shall
be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission
304
on Appointments. This provision can in no way be

interpreted as authorizing a judge of an inferior court to
sit in the Supreme Court, not by appointment by the
President of the Philippines and with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, but just by a mere
designation made by the President and without even the
concurrence of the Commission on Appointments.
31. SECTION 14 OF ACT 682.—Section 14 of Act 682, in

authorizing the designation of judges of first instance to
sit in the Supreme Court, in fact, grants the President an
arbitrary power never contemplated by the framers of the
Constitution and deprives the Commission on
Appointments of its constitutional right to consent or not
to consent to the appointment of the members of the
Supreme Court.
32. CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION.—As a

member of the Constitutional Convention and the
Committee on Style thereof, we are in a position to state
categorically that we considered it a vital guarantee that
no member of the Supreme Court could be appointed
"unless he has been five years a citizen of the Philippines."
We would not trust the important functions of the
Supreme Court in the hands of men who have not the time
to learn, to think, and to feel as a born Filipino citizen

should.
33. AGE REQUIREMENT.—Under section 6 of Article VIII of

the Constitution, no person may be appointed a member of
the Supreme Court unless he be at least 40 years of age. A
citizen who is younger may be appointed Judge of any
inferior court.
34. TEN YEARS OF LAW PRACTICE.—The Constitution

requires that no person may be appointed a member of the
Supreme Court unless he "has for ten years or more been
a judge of a court of record or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines." A lawyer who has just been
authorized to practice law may be immediately appointed
a judge of the inferior court, according to section 8 of
Article VIII of the Constitution.
35. TRANSFER TO ANOTHER DISTRICT.—Section 7 of

Article VIII of the Constitution provides that "no judge
appointed for a particular district shall be designated or
transferred to another district without the approval of the
Supreme Court." The principle of judicial stability
sanctioned in said provision is violated by the designation
of a judge of an inferior court to a seat in the Supreme
Court.
36. JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE.—The qualifications for

judges of first instance are provided in section 149 of the
Administrative Code.
305
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 305
They are not the same as those required by the

Constitution for a member of the Supreme Court.
37. RADICALLY WRONG AND SUBVERSIVE.—To give

effectiveness to section 14 of Act 682 is to sanction a
principle radically wrong and highly subversive. It defeats
the very provisions of the Constitution concerning judicial
power.
38. INIMICAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST.—The provisions of

section 14 of Act 682, besides being evidently
unconstitutional, is highly inimical to public interests. It

disturbs the smooth functioning of the affected inferior
courts and delays the administration of justice therein.
39: WORSE THAN THE OLD JUDICIAL "RIGODON" AND

LOTTERY.—The power granted to the President by
section 14 of Act 682 will permit a judicial rigodon worse
than the one against which Judge Borromeo engaged in a
legal battle which made history in our administration of
justice, and worst than the judicial lottery which was
nullified through the efforts of Judge Pedro Concepcion in
a memorable case before the Supreme Court.
40. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO.—The proviso in section 4

of Article VIII of the Constitution applied exclusively to
the provision authorizing the Supreme Court to sit or not
to sit in two divisions. It cannot be interpreted as affecting
the remaining portions of the section as, otherwise, it will
transgress the most elementary rules of literary semantics
and will lead us to the most absurd conclusions.
41. CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.—Under

the Constitution 'the Supreme Court shall be composed
only of "A Chief Justice and ten associate Justices."
Section 14 of Act 682 authorizes it to be composed of five
judges of inferior courts. The constitutional violation is
flagrant.
42. Two SUPREME COURTS.—The practical result of the

action of Congress in enacting section 14 of Act 682 is to
create, form, constitute and organize a second Supreme
Court, thus authorizing the existence of two Supreme
Courts, one composed of a Chief Justice and ten Associate
Justices and the other of six justices and five judges of
inferior courts. This is a clear violation of section 1 of
Article VIII of the Constitution which authorizes the
existence of only one Supreme Court.
43. PRINCIPLE OF IMMOVABILITY.—Immovability is one

of the essential and indispensable characteristics of our
system of administration of justice. That principle is
expressly sanctioned in section 9 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, providing that
306
the members of the Supreme Court cannot be removed

from office except on impeachment proceedings.
44. PARTIAL REMOVAL BY DISQUALIFICATION.—The

disqualification provided in the first paragraph of section
14 of Act 682, provides for the partial removal of the
affected Chief Justice and Associate Justices without the
benefits and guarantees of an impeachment proceeding.
45. LEGISLATIVE INCONSISTENCY.—Since the Chief

Justice and four disqualified Associate Justices were
appointed by the President and their appointments were
promptly approved by the Commission on Appointments,
Congress has absolutely no reason why it should not have
implicit faith in said judicial officers, Section 14 of Act 682
shows the most unjustifiable legislative inconsistency
when it implies lack of faith in said officers.
46. SPELL OF JUSTICE.—Once one feels the charming spell

of justice one will feel it stronger everyday to such extent
that one will accept sweetly any personal sacrifice to be
true to her. There is a rapturous glory in serving her that
makes one forget every other thing else.
47. POPULAR INJUNCTION.—The provision by which the

affected Chief Justice and Associate Justices have been
appointed shows that they have the personality that
guarantees justice. The process carries with it a kind of
popular injunction, sacred in a democracy, that cannot be
reversed except by impeachment proceedings.
48. FOUNTAIN OF PERPETUAL YOUTH.—Although all

efforts have failed to find in the New World discovered by
Columbus the legendary fountain of perpetual youth, it is
in the New World where the most marvelous device for
keeping a youthful, healthy, and vigorous nation was
perfected, the Constitution of the United States of
America. That great document is the source of the
dynamic youthfulness which enabled America to attain
that greatness which is the most amazing spectacle of
modern political history.
49. REIGN OF LAW.—In order that law may continue

reigning with absolute and indivisible authority, it is
necessary that all the component parts of mankind should
abide by the pledge of obeying it. It is the obligation of our
government and our people, in that scheme of universal
moral duty, to see to it that the law of the land be kept in

condition to meet successfully all attacks and assaults.
50. PHYSICAL WORLD AND PEOPLES.—The physical

world is not free to disregard the laws that are embodied
in its constitution; but peoples, being agents of free will,
are at liberty to ignore
307
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 307
Vargas vs. Rilloraza,
and even to trample upon their own constitution. Beset by

opposing and contradictory tendencies they may choose to
follow the way more suited to a collective harakiri by
eliminating the legal bridles established in their
fundamental laws.
51. TESTING FACTOR.—The authors of the Constitution

adopted section 11 of Article VIII, believing that the
people will be benefited by knowing and preserving the
reasons for dissenting opinions, as the validity of the
doctrines enunciated by the majority opinions can only be
successfully and profitably tested by f ully knowing the
reasons of those who disagree with them.
52. LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.—Any effect of

personal character resulting from this opinion must not
affect our loyalty to the Constitution. We will be recreant
to our official duties if we should remain unmoved,
indifferent, passive, when a wanton assault has been
launched against the integrity, independence, and
stability of the sturdiest bulwark of the people's rights and
liberties of this country of ours: the Supreme Court.
53. LIGHTER MOMENTS.—As it happens to all persons and

all human institutions, Congress also, we must confess,
has its moments when it cannot see light. Because it failed
to see light when it enacted section 14 of Act 682 is no
reason why the members of the Supreme Court should
blindly follow suit and refuse to see the light which
Congress failed to see and which now is shown to us
without any kind of obstruction.
54. UNCONSTITUTIONAL.—The creation of a special

Supreme Court by section 14 of Act 682, besides being
null, void ab initio and irretrievably and flagrantly

unconstitutional is essentially inimical to public interest,
gives rise to confusion and chaos in Philippine
jurisprudence, and is liable to shake public confidence in
the administration of justice.
55. JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OF SPECIAL COURTS.—The

panegyrists of the Nippon system of government under
which a special criminal court was created during enemy
occupation, may rest satisfied with the special Supreme
Court brought to existence, if not to duplicate the one
strongly condemned in Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, G.
R. No. L-49, at least, to sanction and perpetuate the
judicial philosophy which promotes the organization of
special courts or tribunals to try specific criminal cases in
which the government or the state is interested in
securing preconceived objectives.
56. REVIVAL AND SURVIVAL OF SKEWED IDEOLOGY.—

The promachoi of the insolent international fraud which
was flung to our face and to the face of the whole world
under the resounding name of Greater East Asia Co-
Prosperity Sphere may relish
308
in the revival and survival of the skewed and fascistic

ideology underlying the organization of special courts to
try special criminal cases in order to serve specific state
aims and purposes,
57. FREEDOM TO OPINE.—We cannot and we do not deny

the perfect right and freedom of the servile kudizers of the
pretended efficiency of dictatorial systems to loudly extol
the virtues of a law which boldly supersedes express
provisions of the Constitution, to create a second and
special Supreme Court to wrest and supplant the
jurisdiction of the legitimate Supreme Court.
58. OUR DUTY.—Those who, like us, are committed to the

upholding of the tenets of democracy, liberty, and justice,
as sanctioned and proclaimed in our Constitution and, at
the cost of untold human sufferings and millions of lives
sacrified in the greatest holocaust known in human
history, were consecrated in the United Nations Charter,

should exert the most unstinted efforts to oppose all
attempts to make their wrong ideology prevails and must
resist, repel and combat any usurpation of the
constitutional functions and prerogatives of the Supreme
Court.
59. OMINOUS PROTASIS.—Rumbling and ominous protasis

of a judicial drama in which this Supreme Court will set a
line of legal and judicial principles, doctrines and rules
which may and will be opposed by the ones set up by the
special Supreme Court.
60. SUPREME.—The existence of the special Supreme Court

is incompatible with the existence of the constitutional
Supreme Court. If both are supreme they are reciprocally
destructive. They are mutually self-repelling, self-
annulling. No matter of logadaedaly may justify the
coexistence of twin "supremes."
ORIGINAL ACTION In the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Claro M. Recto for petitioner.
Solicitor General Manuel Lim and Assistant Solicitor
General Manuel P. Barcelona for respondents.
HILADO, J.:
Counsel for the defense, in a motion dated August 28, 1947,

assails the constitutionality of section 14 of the People's
Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. 682) upon the following
grounds:
309
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 309

"(a) It provides for qualifications of members of the

Supreme Court, other than those provided in
section 6, Article VIII of the Philippine
Constitution.
"(b) It authorizes the appointment of members of the
Supreme Court who do not possess the
qualifications set forth in section 6, Article VIII, of
the Philippine Constitution.
"(c) It removes from office the members of the Supreme
Court by means of a procedure other than
impeachment, contrary to Article IX, of the

Philippine Constitution.
"(d) It deprives the Commission on Appointments of
Congress of its constitutional prerogative to confirm
or reject appointments to the Supreme Court.
"(e) It creates two Supreme Courts.
"(f) It impairs the rule making power of the Supreme
Court, contrary to section 13, Article VIII, of the
"(g) It is a Bill of Attainder, for it punishes by
disqualification members of the Supreme Court who
rendered said public service during the Japanese
occupation.
"(h) It denies the equal protection of the laws.
"(i) It is an ex post pacto legislation.
"(j) It amends the Constitution by a procedure not
sanctioned by Article XV, of the Philippine
Constitution.
"(k) It destroys the independence of the Judiciary, and it
permits the 'packing' of the Supreme Court in
certain cases, either by Congress or by the
President."
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the prosecution, opposes

the motion and in support of his opposition submits these
propositions:
"1. Power of Congress to enact section 14 of

Commonwealth Act No. 682.
"2. Section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 does not
and is not intended to provide an additional
qualification for members of the Supreme Court,
much less does it amend section 6, Article VIII, of
the Costitution of the Philippines.
"3. Qualifications of members of the Supreme Court
prescribed in section 6, Article VIII of the
Constitution apply to permanent "appointees"—not
to temporary 'designees.'
"4. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution is not
applicable to temporary designations under section
14, Commonwealth Act No. 682.
"5. It does not remove but merely disqualifies the
members of the Supreme Court affected to sit and
vote in the particular class of cases therein
mentioned.
310

"6. It does not create an additional 'Special Supreme

Court.'
"7. It does not impair the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court but merely supplements the Rules
of Court.
"8. It is not a bill of attainder.
"9. It is not an ex post pacto law.
"10. It does not deny equal protection of the laws either
to the Justices of the Supreme Court affected or to
the treason indictees concerned.
"11. It does not amend any constitutional provision.
"12. It does not destroy the independence of the
judiciary or curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court."
This opposition is a reproduction by reference in the

instant case of a similar pleading filed by the Solicitor
General in G. R. No. L-398, People vs. Sison, pursuant to
the resolution of this Court in the instant case dated
October 30, 1947, granting the prayer of the Assistant
Solicitor General that in the consideration of petitioner's
motion of August 28, 1947, herein, the said opposition in G.
R. No. L-898 be deemed incorporated in the instant case as
the government's answer to the petitioner's memorandum
herein of September 27, 1947.
It will not be necessary for the purposes of this
resolution to consider and' decide all the legal questions
thus raised by these conflicting contentions of the parties.
For the purposes of the present resolution, the
considerations presently to be set forth are deemed
sufficient. Article VIII, section 4,. of the Constitution
ordains that the Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices and may sit either
in banc or in two divisions unless otherwise provided by
law. Section 5 of the same Article provides, inter alia, that
the members of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Section 6 of the same Article stipulates that
no person may be appointed member of the Supreme Court
unless he has been five years a citizen of the Philippines, is
at least 40 years of age, and has for 10 years or more been

a judge of a court of record or engaged in the prac-
311
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 311

tice of law in the Philippines. By virtue of section 9 of said

Article, the members of the Supreme Court, among other
judicial officials, shall hold office during good behavior,
until they reach the age of 70 years, or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Section
13 of the same Article VIII, inter alia, enunciates that the
then existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are
thereby repealed as statutes, and are declared rules of
court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter
and modify the same, and to the power of the Congress to
repeal, alter, or supplement them. Art. XVI, section 2,
provides that "all laws of the Philippine Islands shall
continue in force until the inauguration of the
Commonwealth, and thereafter they shall remain
operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution, until
amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the Congress of
the Philippines * * *"
Before the adoption of the Constitution, the law on
disqualification of judges was contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, sections 8 and 608. If said sections should be
considered as parts of the then existing adjective
legislation, Article VIII, section 13, of the constitution
repealed them along with others dealing with pleading,
practice and procedure, as statutes, and declared them
rules of court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to
alter and modify the same, without prejudice to the power
of the Congress to repeal, alter or supplement them. In
such case, when the Constitution so provided in said
section 13, it sanctioned as rules of court, among other
provisions, those in said sections 8 and 608 of the former
Code of Civil Procedure concerning the disqualification of
judges. If said sections should be deemed as pertaining to
the then existing substantive legislation, then they were
continued as laws or statutes by the aforecited provision of
Article XVI, section 2.
By virtue either of Article VIII, section 13, or Article
XVI, section 2, of the constitution, therefore, the grounds
312

for disqualifying judges, which had been held to include

justices of the Supreme Court (Jurado & Co. vs. Hongkong
& Shanghai Banking Corporation, 1 Phil., 395) were those
established in sections 8 and 608 of the former Code of
Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court later promulgated the
present Rules of Court wherein Rule 126 treats of the
matter of disqualification of judicial officers. The provisions
of said rule have obviously been taken from the above-cited
sections 8 and 608 of the same former Code of Civil
Procedure (see also II Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, 2d ed., pp. 779-782). By reason of the fact that the
aforementioned provisions of the former Code of Civil
Procedure were continued by the constitution itself, either
as rules of court or as laws or statutes—a point we need not
now decide—there can be no question of unconstitutionality
or repugnancy of said provisions to the constitution as
regards the disqualification of judicial officers. In other
words, the framers deemed it fit, right, and proper that
said provisions shall continue to govern the disqualification
of judicial officers.
Such question of unconstitutionality or repugnancy to
the constitution, however, arises in relation to the
disqualification of certain members of the Supreme Court
provided for in section 14 of the People's Court Act which
says:
"SEC. 14. Any Justice of the Supreme Court who held any office
or position under the Philippine Executive Commission or under
the government called Philippine Republic may not sit and vote in
any case brought to that Court under section thirteen hereof in
which the accused is a person who held any office or position
under either or both the Philippine Executive Commission and
the Philippine Republic or any branch, instrumentality and/or
agency thereof.
"If, on account of such disqualification, or because of any of the
grounds of disqualification of judges, in Rule 126, section 1 of the
Rules of Court, or on account of illness, absence or temporary
disability the requisite number of Justices necessary to constitute
a quorum or to render judgment in any case is not present, the
President may designate such number of Judges of First Instance,
Judges-at-large of First Instance, or Cadastral Judges, having
none of the disqualifications set forth in said section one hereof,
as may be
313
VOL. 80; FEBRUARY 26, 1948 313

necessary to sit temporarily as Justices of said Court, in order to

form a quorum or until a judgment in said case is reached."
We propose to approach this question from the following

angles: (a) whether or not the Congress had power to add to
the pre-existing grounds of disqualification of a Justice of
the Supreme Court, that provided for in said section 14; (b)
whether or not a person may act as a Justice of the
Supreme Court who has not been duly appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments pursuant to the constitution, even only as a
"designee"; and (c) whether or not by the method of
"designation" created by the aforecited section 14 a Judge
of First Instance, Judge-at-large of First Instance, or
Cadastral Judge, designated by the President under the
same section can constitutionally "sit temporarily as
Justice" of the Supreme Court by virtue thereof.
(a) We start with the principle, well known to the legal
profession, that no act of the legislature repugnant to the
constitution can become a law (In re Guariña, 24 Phil., 37,
45; Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 175). To discover
whether the above quoted section 14 of the People's Court
Act is repugnant to the constitution, one of the best tests
would be to compare the operation of the pertinent
constitutional provisions without said section, with their
operation with the same section if the latter were to be
allowed to produce its effects. It is selfevident that before
the enactment of the oft-quoted section of the People's
Court Act, it was not only the power but the bounden duty
of all the members of the Supreme Court to sit in judgment
in all treason .cases duly brought or appealed to the Court.
That power and that duty arise from the above cited
sections of Article VIII of the Constitution, namely, section
4, providing how the court shall be composed and how it
may sit, section 9, ordaining that they shall hold office
during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
years, or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office, and the pertinent
314

constitutional and statutory provisions bearing on the

jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the Supreme
Court. Concretely referring to the instant case, if section 14
of the People's Court Act had not been inserted therein,
there can be no question that each and every member of
this Court would have to sit in judgment in said case.
But if said section 14 were to be effective, such members
of the Court "who held any office or position under the
Philippine Executive Commission or under the government
called Philippine Republic" would be disqualified from
sitting and voting in the instant case, because the accused
herein is a person who likewise held an office or position at
least under the Philippine Executive Commission. In other
words, what the constitution in this respect ordained as a
power and a duty to be exercised and fulfilled by said
members of the Court, the quoted section of the People's
Court Act would prohibit them from exercising and
fulfilling. What the constitution directs the section
prohibits. A clearer case of repugnancy to the fundamental
law can hardly be imagined.
For repugnancy to result it is not necessary that there
should be an actual removal of the disqualified Justice from
his office for, as above demonstrated, were it not for the
challenged section 14 there would have been an
uninterrupted continuity in the tenure of the displaced
Justice and in his exercise of the powers and fulfillment of
the duties appertaining to his office, saving only proper
cases or disqualification under Rule 126. What matters
here is not only that the Justice affected continue to be a
member of the Court and to enjoy the emoluments as well
as to exercise the other powers and fulfill the other duties
of his office, but that he be left unhampered to exercise all
the powers and fulfill all the responsibilities of said office
in all cases properly coming before his Court under the
constitution, again without prejudice to proper cases of
disqualification under Rule 126. Any statute enacted by the
legislature which would impede him in this regard,
315
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 315

in the words of this Court in In re Guariña, supra, citing

Marbury vs. Madison, supra, simply "can not become law."
It goes without saying that, whether the matter of
disqualification of judicial officers belongs to the realm of
adjective, or to that of substantive law, whatever
modification, change or innovation the legislature may

propose to introduce therein, must not in any way
contravene the provisions of the constitution, nor be
repugnant to the genius of the governmental system
established thereby. The tripartite system, the mutual
independence of the three departments—in particular, the
independence of the judiciary—, the scheme of checks and
balances, are commonplaces in democratic governments
like this Republic. No legislation may be allowed which
would destroy or tend to destroy any of them.
Under Article VIII, section 2(4) of the Constitution the
Supreme Court may not be deprived of its appellate
jurisdiction, among others, over those criminal cases where
the penalty may be death or life imprisonment. Treason
may be punished with death or life imprisonment.
Pursuant to Article VIII, sections 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the
Constitution the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may
only be exercised by the Chief Justice and Associate
Justices appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, sitting in banc or in
division, and in cases like those involving treason they
must sit in banc. If, according to section 4 of said Article
VIII, "the Supreme Court shall be composed" of the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices therein referred to, its
jurisdiction can only be exercised by it as thus composed.
To disqualify any of these constitutional component
members of the Court—particularly, as in the instant case,
a majority of them—in a treason case, is nothing short of
pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as
established by the fundamental law. Disqualification of a
judge is a deprivation of his judicial power. (Diehl vs.
Crumb, 72 Okl., 108; 179 Pac., 44). And if that judge is the
one designated by the constitution to exercise the
jurisdiction
316

of his court, as is the case with the Justices of this Court,

the deprivation of his or their judicial power is equivalent
to the deprivation of the judicial power of the court itself. It
would seem evident that if the Congress could disqualify
members of this Court to take part in the hearing and
determination of certain collaboration cases it could extend
the disqualification to other cases. The question is not one
of degree or reasonableness. It affects the very heart of

judicial independence.
Willoughby's United States Constitutional Law, under
the topic of separation of powers, Volume 3, pages
16221624, says:
"Upon the other hand, as we shall see, the courts have not
hesitated to protect their own independence from legislative
control, not simply by refusing to give effect to retroactive
declaratory statutes, or to acts attempting the revision or reversal
of judicial determination, but by refusing themselves to entertain
jurisdiction in cases in which they have not been given the power
to enforce their decrees by their own writs of execution. Thus, as
already mentioned, they have refused to act where their decisions
have been subject to legislative or administrative revisions.
Finally, even where the extent of their jurisdiction, as to both
parties litigant and subject-matter, has been subject to legislative
control, the courts have not permitted themselves to be deprived
of the power necessary for maintaining the dignity, the orderly
course of their procedure, and the effectiveness of their writs.
"In order that the court may perform its judicial functions with
dignity and effectiveness', it is necessary that it should possess
certain powers. Among these is the right to issue certain writs,
called extraordinary writs, such as mandamus, injunction,
certiorari, prohibition, etc., and especially, to punish for contempt
any disobedience to its orders. The possession of these powers the
courts have jealously guarded, and in accordance with the
constitutional doctrine of the separation and independence of the
three departments of government, have held, and undoubtedly
will continue to hold, invalid any attempt on the part of the
legislature to deprive them by statute of any power the exercise of
which they deem essential to the proper performance of their
judicial functions. The extent of their jurisdiction, they argue,
may be more or less within legislative control, but the possession
of powers for the efficient exercise of that jurisdiction, whether
statutory or constitutional, which they do possess, they cannot be
deprived of.
317
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 317

"It has been already pointed out that the jurisdictions of the
inferior Federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court are wholly within the control of Congress,
depending as they do upon statutory grant. It has, however, been
argued that while the extent of this jurisdiction is thus within the
control of the legislature, that body may not control the manner in
which the jurisdiction which is granted shall be exercised, at least
to the extent of denying to the courts' the authority to issue writs
and take other judicial action necessary for the proper and
effective execution of their functions. In other words, the
argument is, that while jurisdiction is obtained by congressional
grant, judicial power, when once a court is established and given a
jurisdiction, at once attaches by the direct force of the
Constitution.
"This position was especially argued by Senator Knox, Spooner
and Culberson and contested by Senator Bailey during the debate
upon the Repburn Railway Rate Bill of 1906. The point at issue
was the constitutionality of the amendment offered by Senator
Bailey providing that no rate or charge, regulation or practice,
prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, should be set
aside or suspended by any preliminary or interlocutory decree or
order of a circuit court.
"This position would seem to be well taken, and would apply to
attempts upon the part of Congress to specify the classes of
statutes whose constitutionality may be questioned by the courts,
or to declare the number of justices of the Supreme Court who will
be required to concur in order to render a judgment declaring the
unconstitutionality of an act of Congress."
In State vs. Morrill (16 Ark., 384), the Supreme Court of

Arkansas declared:
"The legislature may regulate the exercise of, but cannot abridge,
the express or necessarily implied powers granted to this court by
the Constitution. If it could, it might encroach upon both the
judicial and executive departments, and draw to itself all the
powers of government; and thereby destroy that admirable system
of checks and balances to be found in the organic framework of
both the federal and state institutions, and a favorite theory in
the government of the American People * * *."
The members affected by, the prohibition have heretofore

disqualified themselves, partly because they presumed the
statute valid and partly because they would rather have no
hand in the revision of the appeals, for the purpose of
avoiding even a breath of suspicion as to the
318

impartiality of their actuations. However, realizing upon a

thorough analysis of the matter by counsel on both sides,
the far-reaching implications which the precedent might

authorize, imperiling the independence of one coordinate
branch of the Government, they finally cast aside all
reluctance to consider the point, and came out with
practical unanimity to condemn any legislation which
impinges or might impinge upon the fundamental
independent powers of the judicature.
Some of them have no quarrel with legislative authority
to enumerate instances in which judges may not sit. They
would even concede that. But, they say, let the rules be
promulgated before the event happens or litigation arises.
To promulgate them after, would enable the Congress in
specific situations to order that Judge X shall not decide
the controversy between Y and Z or that Justice M shall
not sit in the appeal of P. S. and so on ad infinitum, and
thus decisively influence the decision, for or against one
party litigant. Such legislative power might thus be
wielded to interfere with the functions of the judiciary,
depriving Philippine citizens of their right to impartial
awards from judges selected without any reference to the
parties or interests to be affected. Unnecessary to prove or
impute sinister motives behind the statutory
disqualification. Enough that recognition of the power
might give way to the operation of unworthy combinations
or oppressive designs.
Let it not be argued that the Court is the same, only the
membership being different. Because Article VIII, sections
4 and 5, of the Constitution do not admit any composition
of the Supreme Court other than by the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices therein mentioned appointed as therein
provided. And the infringement is enhanced and
aggravated where a majority of the members of the Court—
as in this case—are replaced by judges of first instance. It
is distinctly another Supreme Court in addition to this.
And the constitution provides for only one Supreme Court.
319
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 319

From all that has been said above it results that the
ground for disqualification added by section 14 of
Commonwealth Act No. 682 to those already existing at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution and continued by it
is not only arbitrary and irrational but positively violative
of the organic law.
(b) In the face of the constitutional requirement (Art.

VIII, section 5) that the members of the Supreme Court
should be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments, we are of opinion that
no person not so appointed may act as Justice of the
Supreme Court and that the "designation" authorized in
section 14 of the People's Court Act to be made by the
President of any Judge of First Instance, Judge-at-large of
First Instance or Cadastral Judge can not possibly be a
compliance with the provision requiring that appointment.
An additional disqualifying circumstance of the "designee"
is the lack of confirmation by or consent of the Commission
on Appointments. Without intending the least reflection on
the ability, learning, and integrity of any such "designee,"
we are merely construing and applying the fundamental
law of the land. A Judge of First Instance, Judge-at-large of
First Instance or Cadastral Judge, under section 149 of the
Revised Administrative Code, need not be at least forty
years of age, nor have for ten years or more been a judge of
a court of record or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines (as required by section 6 of Article VIII of the
Constitution), because under said section he need only have
practiced law in the Philippines for a period of not less than
five years or have held during a like period within the
Philippines an office requiring a lawyer's diploma. So that
it may happen that a "designee" under section 14 of the
People's Court Act, sitting as a substitute Justice of the
Supreme Court in particular collaboration cases, and
participating therein in the deliberations and functions of
the Supreme Court, like any regular Justice thereof, does
320

not possess the required constitutional qualifications of a

regular member of said Court. Here again is another point
of repugnancy between the challenged section and the
constitution. And if we consider the actual fact that only
four of the present ten Justices of this Court are not
adversely affected by the disqualification established in
section 14 of the People's Court Act, we see that the
"designees" constitute a majority when sitting with said
four Justices, giving rise to the result that, if the body
composed by them all should be considered as the Supreme
Court, it would be composed by four members appointed
and confirmed pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of Article VIII
of the Constitution and six who have not been so appointed

and confirmed. The situation would not be helped any by
saying that such composition of the Court is only
temporary, for no temporary composition of the Supreme
Court is authorized by the constitution. This Tribunal, as
established under the organic law, is one of the permanent
institutions of the government. The clause "unless
otherwise provided by law" found in said section 4 can not
be construed to authorize any legislation which would alter
the composition of the Supreme Court, as determined by
the constitution, for however brief a time as may be
imagined. In principle, what really matters is not the
length or shortness of the alteration of the constitutional
composition of the Court, but the very permanence and
unalterability of that composition so long as the
constitution which ordains it remains permanent and
unaltered. We are furthermore of opinion that said clause
refers to the number of Justices who were to compose the
Court upon its initial organization under the
Commonwealth, and the manner of its sitting; that is, that
the Legislature, when providing for the initial organization
of the Supreme Court under the Commonwealth, was
authorized to fix a different number of Justices than
eleven, and determine the manner of the Court's sitting
differently from that established in section 4 of Article
321
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 321

VIII of the Constitution, but it was and is not empowered

to alter the qualifications of the Justices and the mode of
their appointment, which are matters governed by sections
5 and 6 of said Article VIII wherein the clause "unless
otherwise provided by law" does not even exist, nor the
provision on who shall be the component members of the
Court. Such a legislation was enacted in the form of
Commonwealth Acts Nos. 3 and 259, the pertinent
provisions of which amended sections 133 and 134 of the
Revised Administrative Code. But after liberation, the
Chief Executive, by Executive Order No. 40 (41 Off. Gaz.,
187), amended sections 133 and 134 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 3 and sections 1 and 2 of.
Commonwealth Act No. 259, and repealed all acts or parts
of acts inconsistent with the provisions of said executive
order; and the same Chief Executive, by Executive Order
No. 86 (42 Off. Gaz., 15) f urther amended section 133 of

the Revised Administrative Code, as thus previously
amended, also repealing all acts or parts of acts
inconsistent therewith. Both by virtue of Executive Order
No. 40 and Executive Order No. 86, the number of Justices
of the Supreme Court, as originally fixed at eleven by the
Constitution, was restored.
(c) However temporary or brief may be the action or
participation of a judge designated under section 14 of the
People's Court Act in a collaboration case of the class
therein defined, there is no escaping the fact that he would
be participating in the deliberations and acts of the
Supreme Court, as the appellate tribunal in such a case,
and if allowed to do so, his vote would count as much as
that of any regular Justice of the Court. There can be no
doubt that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices
required by section 4 of Article VIII of the Constitution to
compose the Supreme Court are the regular members of
the Court—indeed, a "temporary member" thereof would be
a misnomer, implying a position not contemplated by the
constitution. Section 5 of the same Article VIII, in requiring
the mem-
322

bers of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the President

with the consent of the Commision on Appointments,
makes it plainly indubitable that the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices who are to compose the Court and sit
therein under section 4, have to be thus appointed and
confirmed. As already adverted to, a mere designation
under section 14 of the People's Court Act does not satisfy
the constitutional requirement of appointment, with the
additional circumstance that as to such designation the
Commission on
Appointments is entirely dispensed with. We find
absolutely nothing in the context which may soundly be
construed as authorizing, merely by legislation, any change
in the constitutional composition of the Supreme Court, or
the performance of its functions by any but its
constitutional members. On the other hand, we have to go
by the cardinal rule that "usually provisions of a
constitution are mandatory rather than directory, and
mandatory provisions are binding on all departments of the
government/' (16 C. J. S., 120).
"The main reason for this rule is that in Constitutions the

sovereign itself speaks and is laying down rules which, for the
time at least, are to control alike the government and the
governed. It is an instrument of a solemn and permanent
character, laying down fundamental maxims, and, ordinarily, is
not supposed to concern itself with mere rules of order in
unessential matters" (Baker vs, Moorhead, 174 N. W., 430, 431;
103 Neb., 811);
"Court is loath to say that any language of the constitution is
merely directory". Scopes vs. State, 289 S. W., 363, 366; 154
Tenn., 105; 53 A. L. R., 821). (Footnote 93, C. J. S., 120.)
Under sections 4 and 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution, it

is clear that the framers intended the Supreme Court to
function through the members who are therein defined;
and by section 6 they determined who may be appointed
such members. This naturally excludes the inter vention of
any person or official who is not a member of the Court in
the performance of its functions; and it is selfevident that
the "designees" spoken of in section 14 of the People's Court
Act can not be such members in view of the fact that they
have not been appointed and confirmed as such pursuant to
said sections 5 and 6.
323
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 323

Hence, we do not see the way clear to the proposition that

the "designees" in such a case can constitutionally "sit
temporarily as Justices" of the Supreme Court.
By an act of the United States Congress dated February
6, 1905, it was provided in part as follows:
"Temporary judges of Supreme Court; * * * Whenever by reason of

temporary disability of any judge of the Supreme Court or by
reason of vacancies occurring therein, a quorum of the court shall
not be present for business the Governor General of the
Philippine Islands is authorized to designate a judge or judges of
the court of first Instance in the islands to sit and act temporarily
as a judge or judges of the Supreme Court in order to constitute a
quorum of said Supreme Court for business. * * *."
A part of the membership of the Court believes that this

provision is still in f orce by virtue of Article XVI, section 2,
of the Constitution, and should still be applied to cases of
"temporary disability * * * or vacancies occurring" and
preventing a quorum; while the other members are not
prepared to subscribe to the same view, for the reason that

the designation" thereby authorized would be "inconsistent
with this Constitution," in the words of the cited section,
the same as the "designation" authorized by section 14 of
the People's Court Act. Anyway, we need not decide the
point now.
This decision has been prepared before this date, and is
being promulgated bef ore the Court acts upon the Solicitor
General's motion to dismiss dated February 17, 1948, for
the rulings contained herein.
For the foregoing considerations, it is declared and
ordered: (a) that section 14 of the People's Court Act is
unconstitutional in the respects specified in the body of this
resolution; and (b) that this case be dealt with
henceforward in pursuance of and in harmony with this
resolution. So ordered.
Moran, C. J., Parás, Pablo, Bengzon, and Tuason, JJ.,

concur.
324

MORAN, C. J., concurring:
I agree with the majority decision principally upon the

ground that section 14 of People's Court Act No. 682 is so
unfair and unjustified that it not only unjustly deprives a
majority of the members of this Court of their membership
in the cognizance of treason cases, but it also provides for
substitutes who may not have the qualifications of Justices
of the Supreme Court, thus destroying the quality and
integrity of the court's composition as is provided by the
Constitution. Judicial independence as intended by the
Constitution is greatly affected by this legal provision.
PERFECTO, J.:
We concur in the above resolution penned by Mr. Justice

Hilado, our whole position being stated in our separate
concurring opinion.
BRIONES, J.:
Estoy conforme con la parte dispositiva y me reservo el

redactar un dictamen concurrente separado.
PERFECTO, J., concurring:
The constitutionality of section 14 of Commonwealth Act

No. 682, creating the People's Court, is again in issue.
As stated in the majority decision, penned by Mr. Justice
Hilado, the following are the eleven grounds upon which
petitioner challenges the validity of said section:
"(a) It provides for qualifications of members of the

Supreme Court, other than those provided in
section 6, Article VIII of the Philippine
Constitution.
"(b) It authorizes the appointment of members of the
Supreme Court who do not possess the
qualifications set forth in section 6, Article VIII, of
the Philippine Constitution.
"(c) It removes from office the members of the Supreme
Court by means of a procedure other than
impeachment, contrary to Article IX, of the
"(d) It deprives the Commission on Appointments of
Congress of its constitutional prerogative to confirm
or reject appointments to the Supreme Court.
"(e) It creates two Supreme Courts.
325
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 325

"(f) It impairs the rule making power of the Supreme

Court, contrary to section 13, Article VIII, of the
"(g) It is a Bill of Attainder, for it punishes by
disqualification members of the Supreme Court who
rendered said public service during the Japanese
occupation.
"(h) It denies the equal protection of the laws.
"(i) It is an ex post facto legislation.
"(j) It amends the Constitution by a procedure not
sanctioned by Article XV, of the Philippine
Constitution.
"(k) It destroys the independence of the Judiciary, and it
permits the 'packing' of the Supreme Court in
certain cases, either by Congress or by the
President."
We fully concur in all the reasonings of the decision

showing the conflict between the section in controversy and
the provisions of the Constitution and, therefore, in the
conclusion that said section is null and void ab initio, with
the same effect as if it had never been enacted. We are not,
however, in a position to agree with the pronouncements
that may imply that the Constitution has confirmed the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding
disqualifications of members of the judiciary. When the
Convention conferred upon the Supreme Court the rule-
making power, as provided in section 13 of Article VIII, it
did not have in mind the idea of considering the specific
provisions of law then existing on pleading, practice, and
procedure in courts of justice, but only of repealing them as
statutory provisions and turning them into judicial rules,
so that the Supreme Court may alter and modify them. The
conversion had been necessary, because the power to
change statutory provisions belongs exclusively to the
legislative department. Judicial disqualification is a matter
of substantive law and, therefore, beyond the rule-making
power of 'the Supreme Court. Otherwise, it will also be
subject to legislation, as Congress is expressly empowered
to legislate upon judicial rules adopted by the Supreme
Court. Congress can not legislate on judicial
disqualification without jeopardizing judicial independence.
Judicial qualifications and disqualifications are matters
basically constitutional. They go
326

to the very roots and existence of the judicial system

established by our people. The present provisions of the
Constitution are amply satisfactory. If the good behavior,
age limit and incapacity to discharge the duties of the office
therein mentioned are not satisfactory, correction can be
effected only by constitutional amendment. We deem it
unnecessary to elaborate now on the propositions above
enunciated.
The eleven grounds advanced by petitioner to assail the
constitutionality of section 14 of Commonwealth Act No.
682 are all well taken, as we have already shown in our
unpublished two written opinions in Rama vs. Misa, L-263,
dated February 27, and April 1, 1946.
In the first one we said:
"Since we began to enjoy the privilege of sitting in this Court, one

of the highest positions within the gift of our people, for less than
a year, this is the second time we are compelled to come out to
fight for judicial independence as one of the political values that
should be treasured permanently, if courts must forever be the
unconquerable bulwark of the rights and privileges of the
individuals and the principles of justice, liberty, and democracy.
The first occasion was when we wrote our concurring opinion on
September 6, 1945, in the case of Raquiza vs. Bradford, L-44.
"The respondents' motion, upon which the majority resolution
was adopted, invokes the provisions of section 14 of
Commonwealth Act No. 682, creating the People's Court,
disqualifying any justice who held any office or position under the
Philippine Executive Commission or under the government called
Philippine Republic, during the enemy occupation, to sit and vote
in any case in which the accused held any office or position under
said governments or any branch, instrumentality, and/or agency
thereof.
"We are of opinion that said section, so far as it provides for
said disqualification, is null and void, and without effect, because:
"(1) It is utterly wrong as a matter of principle;

"(2) It violates the Constitution of the Philippines; and
"(3) It destroys the judicial independence of the Supreme
Court.
"Whatever the reason Congress had in mind in providing for

said disqualification, it is important to remember that
respondents have made of record that their motion 'is not inspired
by any lack of confidence in the impartiality, character, and
integrity of
327
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 327

the honorable members of this Court affected by the relief sought,'

and that there is no basis to say the contrary.
"We must also bear in mind that in France, Mongibaux, the
former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the Vichy
government, was the one who tried, judged, and sentenced
Marshal Petain. No one cast any doubt as to his impartiality,
character, and integrity. No one disputed the wisdom and justice
of his decision, condemning as guilty of collaboration the head of
the Vichy government.
"Article VIII, section 6, of the Constitution, provides for the
qualifications of a person who may be appointed member of the
Supreme Court. Section 14 of Act 682, in effect, in the cases

mentioned therein, amends the Constitution by adding a new
qualification, namely, that the member had not held any office or
position under the Philippine Executive Commission or the
socalled Philippine Republic. Congress, according to Article XV of
the Constitution, may propose amendments to it, the proposal to
be approved by the people, but it cannot amend it.
"Article VIII, section 8, of the Constitution, provides that
Congress 'shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of inferior
courts.' We may construe the provision as also authorizing
Congress to prescribe the 'disqualifications' of said judges. But the
very fact that such provision exists in the Constitution regarding
judges of inferior courts, but not of the Supreme Court, must be
interpreted to the effect that Congress is without power to
prescribe disqualifications for said justices. Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius.
"Article VIII, section 9, of the Constitution, provides that the
members of the Supreme Court 'shall hold office during good
behavior, until they reach the age of seventy years, or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.' But the
provision is completely silent as to how and by whom said
members may be deprived of their right to hold office in case they
become incapacitated to discharge the duties thereof, reach the
age of seventy, or failed to behave accordingly. Shall the power be
exercised by the Supreme Court itself, or shall it be left to the
conscience of the affected justice? Quære. Certainly, they cannot
be exercised by legislation.
"It seems that the good behavior clause of Article VIII, section
9, must be jointly considered with Article IX, section 1, where the
acts as against good behavior under Article VIII, section 9, should
be considered specified. In such case, Article IX provides for the
procedure for removal by impeachment. The procedure provided
in Article IX cannot be substituted by legislation without violating
the fundamental law of the land.
328

"With all the admiration and profound respect we entertain for

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who possibly will be rated as the
greatest president of the United States of America, and,
undoubtedly, as one of the highest apostles of freedom,
democracy, and humanity, we must admit that he committed a
great blunder when he proposed to pack the United States
Supreme Court with additional new and younger members. All
the believers in democratic institutions are glad that the proposal
met defeat, the most crushing and resounding one suffered in

Congress by President Roosevelt.
"The wrong about to be committed by said proposal was one by
addition. The wrong committed by section 14 of Act 682 is by
subtraction. Whether by addition or by subtraction, the principle
is essentially wrong, unjust, subversive, destructive of the
principle of separation of powers. It will, ultimately, turn the
Supreme Court, not as it is and should be, not as one of the
dignified powers of government, but as a mere appendix of
Congress, subject to the whims of the leaders of the same.
"With all our respect and regard for Congress, if we have to be
realistic, we should not close our eyes to the logical pernicious
consequences of the principle, if we sanction it, that would allow
Congress to provide for disqualifications on any ground, no matter
what the wisdom or nonsense of it, of justices of the Supreme
Court. If we recognize that power in Congress, it will make of the
Supreme Court a mere tool in the hands of the leaders of the
legislative power who may, by legislation, disqualify one or more
members of the Supreme Court today, for one reason; tomorrow,
upon different grounds; and the day after tomorrow, on further
grounds, until the members affected are, in effect, deprived totally
of their functions and office, until the Supreme Court is altogether
crippled or totally abolished.
"We refuse absolutely to sanction or to take part in such a
governmental framework where the highest tribunal of the land
will not be more than a mocking shadow of judicial power.
"No power in government should try, directly or indirectly, to
control the manner by which the Supreme Court and its members
should administer justice. Providing for disqualifications by law is
an attempt to control the Supreme Court and its members. Such
attempt must be rejected with energy. Once the members of this
Supreme Court have been appointed, their appointments have
been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, and they
have taken their oath of office, the only power that can control
their acts is the power of their own conscience. People and
government should depend on them with implicit faith and
confidence. Over their consciences will always loom as an eternal
329
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 329

guiding star, the object of their functions: justice, with all its
overpowering moral and divine force.
"According to Cicero 'in justice the brilliance of virtue is
greater, and from her they receive their name just men' (De Offic.
1. 1, tit. de Justitia); and Saint Thomas Aquinas maintains that
'justice excels all other moral virtues' and 'it is the most excellent
among all other virtues' (Summa Theologica, Second Part,
Cuestión XVIII, Article XII.)
"Although the pseudo-progressives of new pattern, those
intellectual renegades who spurn the wisdom of the ages, may not
relish it, we have to quote from Aristotle that 'justice seems to be
the most excellent virtue, and that neither the afternoon star nor
the morning star inspires more admiration than her' (Ethics, 1. 5.
c. 1), as 'the greatest virtues are necessarily those which are more
useful to others, because virtue is a beneficent faculty' (Rhetor. 1,
1, c. 9). After all, those who look farther in the past will see better
the future. Who can pull the farther back the string of a bow, he
will send the arrow the farther. Robert Maynard Hutchins,
President of the University of Chicago, one of the institutions
which greatly contributed to the development of the atomic bomb,
in the 1945 edition of his book 'The High Learning in America'
could not avoid invoking several times the authority of the
Stagirite. The Pleiad of great physicists who are responsible for
the ushering of the Atomic Energy Era, the most revolutionary in
the history of humanity—Becquerel, Curie, Hertz, Einstein, Bohr,
Smyth, Rutherford, Meitner, Oppenheimer, and many others—
themselves admitted that the ideas of Democritus and Aristotle
on matter, on energy, on the elements of universe, expressed
centuries before Christ, the philosopher's stone of the medieval
alchemists, and the ideas of Galileo and Newton are direct
progenitors and inspirers of the present concepts on matter and
energy as the different expressions of the same thing and which
permitted the discovery of that wonderful microcosmos where the
constellations of electrons, protons, neutrons, deuterons, photons,
alpha, beta and gamma rays, and other radiant particles are in
play, offering to man the mastery it never had on physical nature
with the harnessing of the basic forces of universe.
"There are thoughts and ideas bequeathed to us by great
thinkers which remain fresh and young through the ages and
centuries, like the flesh of the woolly mammoth, buried in the
Russian tundras, which today can still be eaten, although the
beasts died in the pre-historic darkness of remote antiquity.
Those are the thoughts and ideas insufflated with the vitality of
eternal truth. They spring from the minds of the geniuses with
which Nature, once
330

in a while, blesses certain epochs, to be the intellectual leaders of

mankind for all time.
"The ignorants and retrogrades will never understand it; but it

is a fact that in the summit of his glorious career, Justice Holmes,
the greatest judge of modern times, continued reading Aristotle.
To free themselves for the sorrows they feel with the surrounding
market of vulgarity, where pygmies and riffraffs dominate, great
minds seek enjoyment in the company of their kind. Eagles will
not be happy in the society of flies and mosquitoes. That explains
the calibre of the friends Rizal had in Europe.
"All these may sound esoteric to the unfortunate class of
morons or mental degenerates. We cannot help it. Our words are
addressed to persons with normal understanding.
"We wish to make it of record that, as a matter of fact, some of
the members who disqualified themselves had some doubts on the
validity of any law, passed after their appointment to this Court,
which under the guise of establishing disqualifications has the
effect of either temporarily removing them from office or changing
the composition of the Supreme Court, when called upon to decide
those issues reserved to it by the Constitution. But they chose not
to inquire further into the matter, what with their opinion that
under section 14 disqualification was optional with them and the
court, and the prima, facie presumption in favor of the law's
validity.
"We, therefore, dissent from the majority's resolution. We
maintain that the affected members are duty bound to ignore
section 14 of Act 682 and should proceed to continue exercising
their constitutional functions in the present case."
The above was written in relation to a resolution adopted

by the Supreme Court with the members who decided to
disqualify themselves taking part.
The second opinion was written in relation with a
resolution adopted by a body composed of a minority of
Justices of the Supreme Court and a majority of judges
designated by the President of the Philippines to sit in the
Supreme Court. We stated therein:
"A motion was filed by petitioner impugning the organization and

constitution of the Supreme Court as presently constituted for
purposes of taking cognizance, trying and deciding the present
case, raising specially the issue as to the validity, under the
Constitution, of the designation of the five judges of courts of first
instance to sit as acting justices of the Supreme Court in
331
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 331

substitution of the Chief Justice and four Justices who, upon

motion of the party respondent and in the compliance with the
first paragraph of section 14 of Act 682, creating the People's
Court, inhibited themselves in this case.
"The motion was filed on Monday, April 1, 1946, just before the
hearing of this case on the merits. After a few minutes
deliberation, the majority resolved to deny the motion and,
consequently, to reject the point of constitutional law raised in
said motion.
"The question being of far-reaching importance and having
been raised for the first time, we were of opinion that it requires
deep thinking and study, matured deliberation, and ample and
long discussion before this Supreme Court could do full justice in
disposing of so important question. For said purposes the few
minutes employed in considering and deciding the question were,
to our mind, absolutely inadequate. A few hours would even be
also inadequate. Days, with full opportunity for complete rest in
the intervening nights, are imperatively needed. But the majority,
overruling our position, unsupported by all the members of this
court, except ourselves, thought otherwise and decided the
question on a lightning-like fashion, deciding, furthermore, to
verbally promulgate the resolution at the beginning of the
hearing, without waiting for the resolution to be formally
committed in writing as naturally must be expected from a court
of record par excellence as no other can be than the highest
tribunal of the land.
"We wanted to have an opportunity of studying further the
question, of thinking more on it and, at least, for a solitary self
discussion, in lieu of a deliberation with our brethren assembled
in a collective body, the benefits of which we were deprived, we
announced at the hearing, when the resolution was verbally
promulgated, that we are reserving our vote until the resolution
could be reduced to writing.
"Now we are ready to cast our vote with full consciousness, for
the upholding of the constitutional question raised by petitioner,
and in support of that vote we are writing this opinion.
"Our position is that the designation of the five judges of first
instance to sit in this Supreme Court as acting Justices in the
place of the Chief Justice and four Justices who inhibited
themselves is, under the Constitution, null and void; that said
judges can not sit in this Supreme Court and take part in its
deliberations and decision in this case without violating the
Constitution; and that all actions of this court taken with the
participation of said temporary Justices are and must be declared
null and void and without effect. There are several grounds in
support of this position.
332

"Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:

" 'The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
in such inferior courts as may be established by law.'
"This provision makes the Supreme Court a constitutional
organism, whose existence, constitution, and organization are
provided in the fundamental law of the land, and said matters
cannot be the subject of laws enacted by the legislative power,
unless expressly so authorized by the Constitution itself.
"Otherwise, Congress will be in a position to change the
composition and organization of the Supreme Court by actually
amending the corresponding constitutional provisions, and such
thing cannot be done without violating the fundamental law, as
any amendment of the same to take effect must be submitted to
the sanction and approval of the people represented by the body of
the national electorate.
"The provisions of section 14 of Act 682 regarding
disqualification of members of this Supreme Court and for the
designation of judges who may take their place in this Court have
the effect of amending the Constitution.
"In a former dissenting opinion in this case we have already
had the opportunity of expressing our opinion to the effect that
said disqualification provision is null and void, being violative of
the Constitution.
"As a corollary, it is unavoidable to declare also
unconstitutional the provision which authorizes the President of
the Philippines to designate judges of inferior courts to sit in this
Tribunal in the place of the disqualified Justices, it appearing
that there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing Congress or
any legislative body to enact a law providing for said designation.
II
"Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides;
"'The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts
shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments.'
"This provision clearly limits the procedure by which positions

in the Supreme Court may be filled up.
"Under the provision, the members of the Supreme Court must
be appointed by the President of the Philippines, and the
appointment must be with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments.
"Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution can in no way be

interpreted as authorizing a judge of an inferior court to sit in this
Supreme Court, not by appointment by the President of the
333
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 333

Philippines and with the consent of the Commission on

Appointments, but just by a mere designation made by the
President and without even the concurrence of the Commission on
Appointments.
"The designation of five judges of first instance to sit in this
Supreme Court constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the
constitutional provision which requires that the members of the
Supreme Court 'shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments.'
"The provision in the second paragraph of section 14 of Act 682,
in authorizing the designation of judges of first instance to sit in
this Supreme Court, in fact, grants the President an arbitrary
power which the framers of the Constitution would never think of
granting him.
"Said provisions, besides granting the President an arbitrary
power, has the effect of depriving the Commission on
Appointments of its constitutional right to consent or not to
consent to the appointment of members of the Supreme Court.
"The framers of the Constitution considered it wise to have the
appointment of members of the Supreme Court effected in such a
way as will guarantee the expression of the will of the people,
considering that the tremendous judicial powers which the
Supreme Court exercises cannot but affect vitally the well-being
and happiness of all the people of the Philippines.
"So they granted the power of appointment to the President,
who is elected at large by the whole country. But to establish
further guarantees that the appointments count with the
wholehearted approval of the people, the authors of the
Constitution provided that the appointments be approved by the
Commission on Appointments, which is composed of one-half of
the members of the Senate, including the President thereof, and
of a substantial number of members of the House of
Representatives. In this way, the members of this Supreme Court
are appointed with the joint action of the two powers of the
government, more directly in contact with the people, the
executive and the legislative.
"The designation of judges of first instance to sit in this
Supreme Court is dependent only on the action of a single
individual, action that is of temporary nature and which may be
changed, revoked, or reversed at any time, under any

circumstance, without any limitation except the psychological
limitations of the powers of his imagination.
III
" 'No person may be appointed member of the Supreme Court unless he
has been five years a citizen of the Philippines.,'
334

"On the other side, section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution

provides that:
" 'Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of inferior courts,

but no person may be appointed judge of any such courts unless he is a
citizen of the Philippines/
"As a member of the Constitutional Convention and of the

Committee on Style thereof which drafted the final text of the
Constitution, we are in a position to state categorically that the
Constitutional Convention considered it a vital guarantee that no
member of the Supreme Court could be appointed 'unless he has
been five years a citizen of the Philippines', because we would not
trust the important functions of this Supreme Court in the hands
of men who have not enough time to learn, to think, and to feel as
a born Filipino citizen should. We considered this condition
necessary and vital with regards to the highest tribunal of the
land, whose decisions shall usually be the last word in the
administration of justice.
"We did not deem it necessary to require the same condition
with respect to judges of courts inferior to the Supreme Court, so
we provided that it was enough that the appointee be 'a citizen of
the Philippines', no matter whether he be a one-year or one-day
Filipino citizen,
"Therefore, a one-day Filipino citizen may become a judge of
first instance. If we have to abide by the provision of Act 682
herein in question, such one-day Filipino citizen may be
designated by the President to sit in the Supreme Court. That is
while the Constitution requires that a member of the Supreme
Court must be, at least, 'five years a citizen of the Philippines',
Commonwealth Act 682 authorizes to sit in this Supreme Court a
judge who is just a one-day or a one-year Filipino citizen. The
violation of the Constitution cannot be more patent and flagrant.
IV
"Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution requires that a

person to be appointed a member of the Supreme Court, must be
'at least 40 years of age.'
"No such age requirement is provided in section 8 of Article
VIII of the Constitution with regards to judges of inferior courts.
"Therefore, a citizen who is 30 years or 20 years of age may be
appointed as judge of first instance.
"A judge of first instance of 30 or 20 years, under the provision
in question of Commonwealth Act 682, may be designated by the
President to sit in this Supreme Court.
335
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 335

"It is unnecessary that we would explain the reasons of the

Constitutional Convention in requiring that members of this
Supreme Court must be at least 40 years of age, as said reasons
are self-evident.
"There is no reasoning that can avoid recognizing the fact that
the provision of Commonwealth Act 682 in authorizing, in fact,
that a judge of 30 or 20 years of age may sit as acting Justice of
the Supreme Court is an evident violation of section 6 of Article
VIII of the Constitution.
"Section 6 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that no

person may be appointed member of the Supreme Court unless he
'has for ten years or more been a judge of a court of record or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.'
"Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution also requires that
judges of inferior courts should have been 'admitted to the
practice of law in the Philippines.'
"Therefore, a lawyer who has just been authorized to practice
law may immediately be appointed a judge of first instance.
"Such a judge, under Act 682, may be designated to sit as a
member of this Supreme Court.
"This is another clear violation of the Constitution when it
provides in section 6 of Article VIII that no person may be
appointed as member of the Supreme Court unless 'he has for ten
years or more been a judge of a court of record or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.'
VI
" 'No judge appointed for a particular district shall be designated or

transferred to another district without the approval of the Supreme
Court. The Congress shall by law determine the residence of judges of
inferior courts.'
"If a judge of an inferior court including courts of first instance

and municipal and justice of the peace courts cannot be
transferred or designated to another district without the approval
of the Supreme Court, how can he be transferred to a higher
court, such as the Supreme Court, without the approval of the
latter?
"If to transfer a judge of a municipal court to another
municipal court the Constitution requires the approval of the
Supreme Court, although the transfer is to a court of the same
category as the one to which the judge has been appointed, and so
is the case of a judge of first instance, it is so because the
Constitution
336

seeks to maintain the stability of judges in their respective

districts, and that stability cannot be disturbed but by following
the constitutional procedure.
"Under the maxim of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, a
judge of an inferior court cannot be transferred but only to other
district of the same category, provided the transfer is approved by
the Supreme Court.
"The designation of judges of first instance to sit in this
Supreme Court as provided in section 14 of Act 682 is, in effect, a
transfer, and being a transfer not expressly authorized by the
Constitution cannot be effected without violating the
Constitution.
VII
"So far, we have dealt with the qualifications of judges of

inferior courts as required by the Constitution, and it may be
argued that the provisions of the Constitution do not preclude the
legislative power from requiring, besides the minimum
qualifications fixed by the Constitution, further qualifications in
such a way that no person may be appointed as judge of an
inferior court unless he possesses the same qualifications required
by the Constitution for a person to be appointed as a member of
the Supreme Court.
"As can be seen, the argument is based on a legal situation

which may be set up by the legislative power, but may not also
happen in actual practice. This very fact is enough basis for
dismissing the argument.
"But if this were not enough, we may point out that the
situation at present shows the innate weakness of the argument,
as the law at present does not require that a person to be
appointed to a position in any inferior court should have the same
qualifications required by the Constitution for a person to be
appointed a member of the Supreme Court.
"The qualifications for judges of first instance, the next
following in category to Justices of the Supreme Court, are
provided for in section 149 of the Administrative Code, which
reads as follows;
" 'SEC. 149. Qualifications.—No person shall be appointed judge of first

instance or auxiliary judge unless he has practiced law in the Philippine
Islands or in the United States for a period of not less than five years or
has held during a like period, within the Philippine Islands or within the
United States, an office requiring a lawyer's diploma as an indispensable
requisite; and before assuming such judicial office he shall qualify as a
member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands if he
has not already done so."
337
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 337

"As can be seen, none of the three essential qualifications

specifically required by the Constitution for a person to be
appointed as a member of the Supreme Court is required for a
person to be appointed as a judge of first instance.
"Consequently, section 14 of Act 682 is undeniably
unconstitutional, not only because it disqualifies and eliminates
five members of this Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice,
such disqualifications being violative of the Constitution, as we
have shown in our dissenting opinion in this same -case dated
February 27, 1946, but because in its second paragraph it
authorizes the designation of judges of inferior courts to sit
temporarily as Justices of the Supreme Court, although said
judges are not required to possess the qualifications required of a
member of the Supreme Court.
"Said second paragraph of section 14 of Act 682 reads as
follows:
" 'lf, on account of such disqualification, or because of any of the grounds

of disqualification of judges in Rule 126, section 1 of the Rules of Court,
or on account of illness, absence or temporary disability the requisite

number of Justices necessary to constitute a quorum or to render
judgment in any case is not present, the President may designate such
number of Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-large of First Instance, or
Cadastral Judges, having none of the disqualifications set forth in said
section one hereof, as may be necessary to sit temporarily as Justices of
said Court, in order to form a quorum or until a judgment in said case is
reached.'
"It can be alleged, as a matter of fact, that the five judges

designated by the President of the Philippines to sit as temporary
Justices of the Supreme Court in substitution of the Chief Justice
and four Justices who inhibited themselves from taking part in
the consideration of this case, possess each and everyone of them
all the minimum qualifications required by the Constitution of a
person who could be appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court.
"The fact does not destroy the theory that the second
paragraph of section 14 of Act 682 authorizes, in utter violation of
the Constitution, the designation of judges not possessing all or
any of the three minimum constitutional qualifications as Justices
of the Supreme Court to sit and act as such Justices of the
Supreme Court.
VIII
"To give effectiveness to section 14 of Act 682 is to sanction a

principle radically wrong and highly subversive.
338

"To recognize the power of Congress to enact section 14 of Act 682

is to recognize in the legislative power an authority not granted to
it by the Constitution and which, in effect, is an authority that
can be used, as in fact it is actually used, to defeat the very
provisions of the Constitution concerning judicial power.
"If Congress were empowered to enact such a law, it is because
it should be recognized as possessing the power to legislate upon
membership of this Supreme Court, which is tantamount to
making the Supreme Court a toy that Congress may handle
according to its caprice and whims.
"If Congress may authorize the designation of district judges of
first instance, judges-at-large of first instance, or cadastral
judges, no matter whether they are occupying their respective
positions permanently or in acting or temporary capacity, to sit as
Justices of the Supreme Court, then Congress may use the same
power to authorize the designation of other persons, including
those who do not possess even the qualifications of judges of

inferior courts.
"If the theory is good, then there will be no limitations as to the
class or classes of persons which Congress may authorize to sit in
the highest tribunal of the land, except legislative discretion or
political expediency, none of -which may be considered as
limitations at all, there being no fast principle or doctrine that
may rule either one of them.
"One day Congress may authorize judges of lower courts to sit
as Justices of the Supreme Court. The next day it may authorize
any person who is not even a judge of a lower court nor a lawyer.
And the day following the next, Congress may authorize senators
or representatives to sit as Justices of the Supreme Court.
"Of course, these are extreme instances, and it may be argued
that Congress will not be so foolish as to entertain such action or
to dare challenge the good sense of public opinion. But such
argument cannot destroy the logical consequences of the principle
which we are exposing as public menace number one against the
orderly organization and functioning of a constitutional
government.
"To show how wrong the principle is, we must follow it to all its
consequences, and it cannot be correct if it leads us to disaster,
marchy, and chaos, such being the fatally inevitable results of the
principle upon which section 14 of Act 682 is premised.
IX
"Section 14 of Act 682, besides being evidently

unconstitutional, is highly inimical to public interests.
339
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 339

"Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides: 'The

Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
inferior courts as may be established by law.'
"In accordance with this provision, the legislature created the
judicial positions to which the five judges designated as
temporary Justices of the Supreme Court have been appointed.
"It is undeniable that public interests demand that said
judicial positions should exist, that the positions be filled by the
respective judges, that they should function in order that they
may do their part in the Philippine system of administration of
justice.
"The positions would not have been created by the legislature if
not required by public interests. The same public interests
demand that the positions should continue, otherwise, Congress

would have abolished them. Public interests demand that said
positions be used to administer justice and, in' order that the
position may function, they should be filled by the corresponding
judges. Therefore, by abiding by public interests, the President of
the Philippines appointed said five judges to their respective
judicial positions. But if there is any doubt as to the wisdom of the
President in appointing said judges, the Commission on
Appointments by passing upon the appointments will dispel it,
and, lastly, there is the eternal vigilance of the popular tribunal of
last resort—public opinion—which cannot fail to expose, unmask,
and denounce the appointments if they are not required by or are
against public interests. Not a single voice has been raised to
oppose the appointments, not a single finger has been pointed to
denounce the appointments, not a single gesture has been shown
against the appointments.
"But, in pursuance of section 14 of Act 682, the five judges are
snatched from their respective positions and deprived of their
functions as judges, are eliminated from their jurisdiction to
continue administering justice in the many legal cases pending
before them, just to unconstitutionally assume functions as
Justices of the Supreme Court.
"It cannot be denied that the legal cases pending before them
in their respective courts will have to be indefinitely postponed
until they are freed from the burden of serving as temporary
Justices of the Supreme Court. Once more a new cause is created
to further aggravate the chronic ailment of our administration of
justice: delay. Once more the victims will clamor with anguishing
voice that immemorial plaint: justice delayed is justice denied.
"There is absolutely no merit in the allegation that other
judges may be temporarily transferred to take the place of the
judges designated to act as Justices of the Supreme Court,
because the
340

transfer does not solve the problem of delay, but only will have
the effect of changing the victims of the unjust delay. If it is said
that other judges may be transferred to take the place of those
who may be transferred to take the place of those designated as
Justices of the Supreme Court, it can be answered that the
situation shall remain irretrievably a vicious circle, where a chain
of makeshifts offers but a temporarily relief by producing new
wrongs and multiplying the number of the victims.
"The power granted to the President by section 14 of Act 682

will permit a judicial rigodon worst than the one against which
Judge Borromeo engaged in a legal battle which made history in
our administration of justice, and worst than the judicial lottery
which was nullified through the efforts of Judge Pedro
Concepcion, later Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals and
still later Justice of the Supreme Court, in a legal case which has
also become memorable.
"Under the provision in question, for reasons of his own or for
no reason at all, the President may replace the present five
Justices in this Court by designating other persons coming from
different courts or judicial districts. In the same fashion, the
President may resubstitute with other judges the first ones
already designated, or may make such other possible changes in
the designations as he may deem proper. It is not impossible or
improbable that judges coming from Cagayan or the Ilocos, in
Northern Luzon, or from judicial districts in Mindanao, or from
Leyte and Palawan, should be shuffling and commuting in order
to take turns in sitting as temporary Justices of the Supreme
Court.
"It is not impossible or improbable that for each group of cases
there may be designated a different group of five judges to sit as
Justices of the Supreme Court. As there are many cases coming
from the People's Court to which section 14 of Act 682 may be
applied, we would not wonder if all judges of first instance and
cadastral judges shall be assembled in Manila, waiting for their
turns to sit in different batches as Justices of the Supreme Court
to try the respective cases for which they may be designated, thus
paralyzing the courts of first instance and cadastral courts.
"The picture of the resulting situation will not be very
encouraging if we have to express our judgment in the most
euphemistic way.
"All what we have said in our dissenting opinion in this case
regarding the inhibition of the Chief Justice and four Associate
Justices, we reproduce here as valid against the constitutionality
341
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 341

of the designation of the above-mentioned five judges as

temporary Justices.
"If the Chief Justice and the said four Justices cannot be
legally disqualified under the Constitution, if the first paragraph
of section 14 of Act 682 is null and void as unconstitutional, if said
Chief Justice and four Justices cannot disqualify or inhibit

themselves from taking part in the consideration, deliberation,
hearing, trial, and decision of this case and, under the
Constitution, they are duty bound to continue sitting in this
Supreme Court for the purposes of this case, the logical
consequence is that they cannot be legally replaced by the five
judges designated to sit in this Court or by anybody else.
"It is our more considered opinion, based on a deep conviction,
that in order not to violate the Constitution the Chief Justice and
the four Justices alluded to should take part in all the proceedings
of this case, and that the designation of the five judges to take
their place in the Supreme Court is null and void and, as such,
must not be given effect.
XI
" 'The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and ten
Associate Justices and may sit either in banc or in two divisions unless
otherwise provided by law.'
"The proviso 'unless otherwise provided by law' cannot be

interpreted as affecting the whole section as, otherwise, it will
transgress the most elementary rules of literary semantics and
will lead us to the most absurd consequences.
"The proviso applies exclusively to the provision authorizing
the Supreme Court to sit in two divisions. As one of the members
of the Constitutional Convention who had the opportunity and
privilege of taking uninterrupted active part in the making of the
Constitution, including section 4 of Article VIII thereof, we are in
a position to state that the members of the Constitutional
Convention had not the least idea of applying the proviso to any
other provision of said section except the one relating to the
authority of this Supreme Court to sit in two divisions.
"If our intention was to apply the proviso to all of the
provisions of said section we could have expressed it directly and
simply by placing the proviso at the beginning of the section,
separated by a comma from all the remaining portions thereof.
But that was not our intention. Our intention was to grant the
legislative power only the authority to permit or not to permit by
law the
342

Supreme Court to sit in two divisions. So we placed the proviso

immediately after the provision it has to affect.
"The authority was limited as to whether or not the Supreme
Court could sit in banc alone or also in two divisions. We never
intended nor could have intended to apply the proviso to other
parts of the section.
"For example. we did not intend to give the legislature power to
enact a law which may provide that the Supreme Court should sit
in banc or not, for it would be the height of inconsistency,
absurdity, and folly to authorize the enactment of a law never
allowing the Supreme Court to sit in banc.
"All collective organism created by the Constitution or by law.
unless otherwise expressly provided, must be understood to act
and function in banc. Such is the case of the Senate, of the House
of Representatives, of the Commission on Appointments, of the
Electoral Tribunals, of the Commission on Elections and,
naturally, of the Supreme Court.
"It is so as a general and fundamental principle in all
democratic institutions; and, if the principle would not suffice, the
Constitution, in the case of the Supreme Court, makes it
expressly compulsory that it should sit in banc.
"Section 10 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides:
" 'All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty or law shall be

heard and decided by the Supreme Court in banc, and no treaty or law
may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of two-thirds
of all the members of the Court."
"Therefore, if the proviso 'unless otherwise provided by law' in

section 4 of Article VIII of the Constitution can not affect the
provision of said section 4, concerning the power and authority of
the Supreme Court to sit in banc, it is only logical to assume that
it cannot go beyond or above, or further than, the remaining
provision 'that the Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
Justice and ten Associate Justices.'
"This means that this provision as to the composition of the
Supreme Court, as far as Congress is concerned, must be
considered as untouchable and sacred. To it may adequately be
applied the Rizalian admonition: noli me tangere.
"This means that the Supreme Court must be composed of 'a
Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices', not otherwise. Never
otherwise. There shall not be more than 'a Chief Justice and ten
Associate Justices'; but section 14 of Act 682 increases the
number with five judges, or five additional temporary Justices.
Instead of a membership of 11, as intended by the Constitution,
there will be 16.
343
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 343

"The practical result of section 14 of Act 682 in the present case is

to create, organize, form, or constitute a Supreme Court composed
of six Associate Justices and five judges of inferior courts.
"In enacting Act 682, Congress, in effect, had flagrantly
violated, or at least, to make it more lenient, amended section 4 of
Article VIII of the Constitution, a thing that is not permissible
from the point of view of our fundamental law.
"Under section 4 of Article VIII of the Constitution, a Chief
Justice is an essential member of the Supreme Court. That
member has been eliminated by Congress.
"Under the same section, ten Associate Justices are essential
members of the Supreme Court. Congress has eliminated four of
them.
"Under the same section, only a Chief Justice and ten Associate
Justices may compose the Supreme Court. Congress decreed that
it shall be composed of six Associate Justices and five judges of
inferior courts.
"Can there be a more flagrant violation of the Constitution?
XII
"The result of the action of Congress in enacting section 14 of

Act 682 is to create, form, constitute and organize, in fact, a
second Supreme Court.
"There is no way of avoiding the actual reality.
"Although apparently everybody is referring to the Supreme
Court as just a single collective body, in fact, there are two
Supreme Courts. This can not be denied unless we are crazy
enough to deny our own existence or that in this world of ours
truth and untruth, beauty and ugliness, life and death are
mingled to make keener our physical, mental, and moral
perception of how little we are when we are confronted with the
infinite greatness of eternal ideas.
"In the first place, there is the Supreme Court composed of a
Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices, created and functioning
under specific provisions of the Constitution. That is what we may
designate as the Supreme Court No. 1.
"In the second place, there is a Supreme Court as created and
organized under the authority of section 14 of Act 682, composed
of six Associate Justices, without a Chief Justice, and five judges
of inferior courts. This we may designate as the Supreme Court
No. 2.
"The existence of two Supreme Courts, and more specifically,
that of the Supreme Court No. 2, because its presence has made
344

possible the existence of two Supreme Courts, is also a clear and

flagrant violation of the Constitution, because it only authorizes
the existence of 'one Supreme Court.'
" 'The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
inferior courts as may be established by law.'
XIII
"Immovability is one of the essential and indispensable

characteristics of our system of administration of justice as
established by the Constitution.
"Such characteristic is considered imperatively necessary to
maintain the judicial independence and to enable courts and
judges to perform their duties with impartiality and with that
auster dignity and firm moral equanimity which must naturally
be expected of men who, besides having a full understanding of
the greatness and solemnity of their official functions, amounting
to that of a veritable mission, feel secure and independent in their
position and do not have to render any accounting for their acts to
any one except to the supreme judgment of their own conscience.
"The principle of immovability is expressly sanctioned in
section 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that
'the members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior
courts shall hold office during good behavior, until they reach the
age of seventy years, or become incapacitated to discharge the
duties of their office.'
"As regards the members of the Supreme Court, they cannot be
removed from office except on impeachment and according to the
solemn proceedings provided in Article IX of the Constitution.
"The Constitution has guaranteed, not only the tenure of office
of judicial officers until they reach the age of seventy years, but
that they cannot even be transferred to a district other than the
one to which. they were appointed, except only as provided by the
Constitution itself.
"'No judge appointed for a particular district shall be designated or

transferred to another district without the approval of the Supreme
Court. The Congress shall by law determine the residence of judges of
inferior courts.'
"This constitutional guarantee protects not only judges of first

instance but also judges of municipal and justice of the peace
courts. If other courts inferior in category to the municipal and
justice of the peace courts are created, the judges thereof
345
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 345

will also be protected by the same constitutional guarantee: to

have a definite residence and not to be transferred to another
district unless with the approval of the Supreme Court.
"Section 14 of Act 682 violates the principle of judicial
immovability and transgresses against the principle of judicial
independence.
XIV
"The Justices of the Supreme Court may only be removed from

office by impeachment as provided by the Constitution itself.
"The disqualification provided in the first paragraph of section
14 of Act 682, in effect, provides for the partial removal of the
affected Chief Justice and Justices without the benefits and
guarantees of an impeachment proceeding.
"The removal is partial, because they are actually removed
from office in regard only to the cases from which they are
inhibited by disqualification. Whether partial or total, the
removal is null and void because it runs counter to the
Constitution.
"A justice of the peace court of the smallest town can not be
transferred to another town without the approval of the Supreme
Court. But section 14 of Act 682 removes the Chief Justice and
four Associate Justices from their functions in the case, and
others of the same class, summarily and without this removal
being passed upon even by the Supreme Court itself. Not even an
executive fiat, ukase, or decree is necessary. Only a motion or, at
least, a mere call of attention by a litigant is necessary.
"Do Justices of the Supreme Court have less rights and
principles than judges of municipal and justice of the peace
courts?
XV
"Section 14 of Act 682 is premised on a wrong philosophy as to

the nature of a judicial office.
"What was the object of providing in the first paragraph
thereof for the disqualification of the Chief Justice and the four
Associate Justices affected thereto? Is it because Congress would
not trust them to do justice in the cases concerning which they are
disqualified?
"Is it because Congress believes that the people will not accept
the judgment of said Chief Justice and said Associate Justices in
the cases referred to as the expression of their most conscientious

judgment?
"That lack of faith in said Chief Justice and four Associate
Justices is unfounded and only shows the most unjustifiable
inconsistency on the part of the authors of section 14 of Act No.
682.
346

"Since said Chief Justice and four Associate Justices were

appointed by the President of the Philippines and their
appointments were promptly approved by the Commission on
Appointments, a constitutional organization representing both
houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives,
Congress has absolutely no reason why it should not have implicit
faith in said judicial officers.
"We do not see why the people should not have full confidence
that said Chief Justice and four Associate Justices will do their
duty faithfully, loyally, impartially, in accordance with law and
with the imperative dictates of their own conscience. Their
appointments and the confirmation of the same should be taken
as an official consecration. When they accepted their
appointments, they fully knew that they accepted a high mission
for life. Under such circumstances all presumptions that they will
do their duty should be favored. If they fail to do their duty,
disqualification by law is not the proper remedy. It is
impeachment as provided by the Constitution.
"But there is absolutely not the least hint of any reason that
could justify their being disqualified and there is absolutely no
reason why any doubt should be cast on their actuation in this
case or any other case.
"When they accepted their appointments, in fact, in taking
their oath of office, they made a solemn vow to dedicate their life
in the service of justice, and when a man feels the spell of justice
the whole world must rely on him.
"Many years ago we appeared in a civil case tried in the Court
of First Instance of Manila. After the trial, Judge Pedro M. Sison,
who was presiding over the tribunal, publicly, in open court, in
the presence of the litigants and all the attorneys, instructed the
undersigned to draft the decision in the case. While our client was
visibly elated, the opposing party and counsel could not hide their
consternation. It was expected that the decision will be rendered
in favor of our client. The next day we handed the draft of the
decision to Judge Sison who signed it without making any
amendment or correction. To the surprise of everybody, except

ourselves, the decision was rendered against our own client.
"The temptation to write the decision in favor of our client was
indeed great and almost invincible. We had at stake in the case
our reputation as attorney-at-law, the goodwill of our client,
substantial legal fees. It was not a very clear case. We could have
written a defensible decision in favor of our client. But over and
above all these considerations, there was our devotion
347
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 347

to justice and the imperative mandate of our conscience. We did

not hesitate even from the very beginning what decision to write,
although during the whole day and whole night before we
concluded drafting the decision, we were frequently assaulted by
the impulse of writing what would better serve the interests of
our client and of our own.
"It is because once you feel the charming spell of justice you
will feel it stronger everyday, to such effect that you will accept
sweetly any personal sacrifice to be true to her. In the same way
as you are ready to face all dangers to conquer the heart of the
lady of your dreams or a mother will accept all kinds of sufferings
to insure the happiness of her child, a person enamored with
justice and consecrated to her noble service will show all kinds of
abnegation to make her always triumphant. There is a rapturous
glory in serving her that makes one forget every other thing else.
"Ehrlich says that 'there is no guarantee of justice except the
personality of the judge.' (Preie Rechtsfindung and freie
Rechtswissenschaft.) The President of the Philippines and the
Commission on Appointments decided that the Chief Justice and
the four disqualified Associate Justices have the personality that
guarantees justice. The validity of that decision has not been
disputed. It has been accepted by the whole people. It carries with
it a kind of popular inunction, sacred in a democracy, and cannot
be reversed except by impeachment proceedings instituted by the
House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. The
Constitution does not authorize any other procedure. Until they
are finally removed by impeachment, they are entitled and
dutybound to exercise their constitutional functions, prerogatives,
and powers in the present case; and any action that may have the
effect of disqualifying them or depriving them of the opportunity
to take part in the disposition of this case, or in replacing them,
although temporarily, with judges of inferior courts, is a flagrant
transgression of the Constitution.
XVI
"Let no one be mistaken that in anything we say in this opinion

any reflection or slur against any of the affected five judges is
intended. With all and each of them we are bound with ties of the
purest and most profound personal respect and admiration. We
are among the first ones to recognize that they possess all the
personal qualities to entitle them to sit with honor in this
Supreme Court or in any other supreme court in the world. Let it
be understood that our paramount and only concern is that our
Constitution be obeyed.
348

"Nowadays much attention is given to the serum acs, developed

by Bogomoletz, the sexagenarian Russian scientist, hailed as the
veritable elixir of youth, intended to make those benefited by it
enjoy the traditional longevity of the inhabitants of Abkhasia, a
not well-known city near the Black Sea. The seeking of youth is
an old urge that has been spurring humanity. For attaining it, the
legendary Dr. Faustus of the Goethian drama had even gone to
the extreme of bartering his own soul to the devil. And after
Columbus discovered the New World, many traversed the Atlantic
and went to the new vast empire in quest of the fountain of
perpetual youth. Although all efforts have failed to find it, it is in
the New World where the most marvelous device for keeping a
youthful, healthy, and vigorous nation was perfected: the
Constitution of the United States of America. That great
document is the source of the dynamic youthfulness which
enabled America to attain that greatness which is the most
amazing spectacle of medern political history. As long as America
sticks to her Constitution and keeps faith with the principles and
guarantees therein contained, so long shall America continue
showing the inexhaustible energy that only a nation endowed
with all the vigor of youth can show. Ours is a young nation, but it
will soon be a decrepit one unless we abide by all the provisions of
our Constitution, the only legal, moral, and political source of
national vitality, the strongest foundation of our nationhood.
"So long as we abide by the principles, ideals, and precepts
embodied in our Constitution, we may look to the future with
confidence. Science may and will usher the world in new eras. The
age of uranium isotopes, of plutonium and other fission products,
may be supplanted by the era of cosmic ray, unravelling new
riddles of the universe and placing in man's hands unsuspected
new tremendous powers to make him a veritable king of the
creation. With such powers, man might boastfully claim that he

has ceased to be the slave of nature to become the master of the
physical world surrounding him. Those powers may be used for
good and for bad, to build or to destroy, to metamorphose and to
metaontose the physical world, to offer conveniences and luxuries
to make happy peoples and nations, or for the wholesale
annihilation of great human conglomerations. The new
tremendous powers will create new menaces and dangers to our
national security and well-being. But so long as the reign of law
remains supreme, we have nothing to be afraid of. In order that
law may continue reigning with absolute and indivisible
authority, it is necessary that all the component parts of mankind
should abide by the pledge of obeying it. It is the obligation of our
government and our people, in that scheme of universal moral
duty, to see to
349
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 349

it that the law of the land be kept in condition to meet

successfully all attacks and assaults, all defiances and challenges.
Let us not forget that the Constitution is the basic and paramount
law of our land.
"Supposing that the material world should have the power to
will and decide to disregard the universal law of gravitation, the
laws of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the laws of cohesion and
fission, or any other law which forms part of the physical
constitution which rules the behavior of matter and energy, the
resulting cosmic catastrophe will certainly defy the wildest
imagination. It is enough to say that the harmony and symmetry
we are beholding in the movements and processions of the stars
and other heavenly bodies shall be replaced by a cosmic anarchy;
and all that indescribably beauty of nature, which is one of the
strongest reasons why we feel it worthy to cling to life, shall be no
more and be substituted by the most horrid disorder in the midst
of universal disintegration.
"The physical world is not free to disregard the laws that are
embodied in its constitution, but peoples, being agents of free will,
are at liberty to ignore and even to trample upon their own
constitution. Beset by opposing and contradictory tendencies, they
may choose to follow the way more suited to a collective harakiri
by eliminating the legal bridles established in their fundamental
laws. Shall we, shall our people disregard the Constitution which
embodies the collective philosophy of our national life? Are we
rash enough to invite the resulting political disintegration? Are
we so reckless as to drive our country to the brink of juridical
disaster? Shall we plunge ourselves into that moral abyss where

the Constitution is replaced by unconstitutional acts, processes,
and practices, or start lawlessness?
"We do not expect or pretend that what we say here or what we
have said or might say in other opinions to be acceptable or
agreeable to others, would satisfy the good taste of many, or could
or should be understood by everybody. Although the ideas we are
expressing or trying to express appear in our mind with crystal-
clear definiteness and precision, our ability to translate them into
words is limited and language itself as a tool of expression is full
of limitations. Besides, we are just beginning to learn English, a
means of expression which in our early childhood we hated as a
symbol of imperialism and one of the instruments of oppression of
the political masters who forced upon our people their rule.
Thanks to developments of recent history, only a few years ago we
felt justified in beginning to revise our old deeprooted attitude,
when we saw that the same language can also be the *
instrument of our national freedom. That is the reason why
350

very often we can hardly make a hint or vague suggestion of the

concepts and thoughts boiling in our mind. But we hope that in a
question of so momentous importance such as the one we are
discussing, involving the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the
judicial independence, and other vital principles, there will be
enough persons who will understand us, not to make completely
useless and futile the constitutional precept making compulsory
that 'any justice dissenting from a decision shall state the reasons
for his dissent' (sec. 11, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines)
which the authors of the Constitution adopted believing that the
people will be benefited by knowing and preserving the reasons of
dissenting opinions, as the validity of the doctrines and rules
enunciated in the majority opinions of the Supreme Court can
only be successfully and profitably tested by fully knowing the
reasons of the Justices who disagreed with them.
XVII
"Not because our opinion will affect some of our more esteemed
and respected friends, some of the finest citizens of our country,
some of the best elements of humanity, shall we hesitate to
unflinchingly express our honest opinion that they are sitting in
this Supreme Tribunal in illegal usurpation of positions to which,
under the provisions of our fundamental law, they are not
entitled, because the positions are not vacant and still
uninterruptedly occupied by men who were duly appointed and

qualified and who cannot be replaced or displaced while they have
not reached the age of seventy years, or been dismissed for grave
misbehavior through solemn proceedings of constitutional
impeachment, and have not rendered, in obedience to the
implacable laws of nature, their inevitable tribute to the ghastly
empress of the valley of eternal silence.
"Over and above all personal considerations, over and above all
reasons of expediency or convenience, we must not shirk our part
in upholding the precepts and mandates of our Constitution. We
know that the immediate result of our theory, if the same is
sustained, will be the ousting of the five judges above referred to
from the positions they are illegally occupying in this Supreme
Court. But no matter how much it may hurt us to express a
conviction that will give such a regrettable result, we cannot help
it for we must have to remain loyal to our oath of office and
maintain supreme the Constitution as an indispensable
cornerstone of the political, social and legal structure of our
people. We will be recreant to our official duties if we should
remain unmoved, indifferent, passive, when, as in the present
case, such a wanton assault has been launched in utter disregard
of the
351
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 351

Constitution, against the integrity, the independence, the

stability, of the last and sturdiest bulwark of all rights and
liberties in this country of ours, the Supreme Court.
"Let us not allow our high regard for Congress, our respect for
the wisdom it ordinarily shows in the fulfillment of its legislative
duties, our personal affection for the senators and representatives
composing it and the high concept we have of their personal
ability, of their intellectual stature, of their devotion to the best
interests of the people, to blind us into accepting legislative
infallibility in the enactment of section 14 of Act No. 682.
"The men composing Congress are made of common clay and,
as children of men, are liable to commit mistakes and errors.
Section 14 of Act No. 682 shows one of the greatest blunders that
the legislative power has ever committed since democracy was
implanted in our country. It is a blunder that has shaken in its
foundations the highest tribunal of the country and, in fact, the
judicial power itself. That blunder is a direct attack against one of
the most vital organisms created by the Constitution as an
essential part of a government that shall embody the ideals of the
Filipino people, 'conserve and develop the patrimony of the
nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves

and their posterity the blessings of independence under a regime
of justice, liberty, and democracy.'
"As it happens to all persons and all human institutions,
Congress has also, we must confess, its moments when it cannot
see light. Even in the best windows of the most transparent
crystal there are mullions and transoms which obstruct the
passage of solar light. Homer sometimes slept. The brightest
minds produced by humanity had been beclouded by concepts and
ideas which successive generations, taught by time and
experience, have found to be false. Even a physical error,
scientifically demonstrable, was elevated for sometime to the
category of an intolerant dogma for not accepting which Galileo
was imprisoned after a famous trial. Because Congress failed to
see light when it enacted section 14 of Act No. 682 is no reason
why the members of the Supreme Court should blindly follow suit
and refuse to see the light which Congress failed to see and which
now is shown to us without any kind of obstruction. Of course, it
is within the power of this Court to refuse to see light. But then
the question is whether the Supreme Court must or must not do
its duty. In our opinion, there cannot be two alternatives. There is
only one path from which we cannot conscientiously swerve. Let
us not allow the common man in the street to remind us: 'Walang
bulag pa sa nagbubulag-bulagan; walang pinaka biñgi katulad ñg
nagbibingibiñgihan.'
352

"To our mind, in the enactment of section 14 of Act 682, as we

have shown, the violation of the precepts of the Constitution is so
clear, so evident, so flagrant, that we must be actually blind not to
see it. The violated constitutional precepts are specific, clear,
unsusceptible to ambiguities and confusions. They do not belong
to the great generalities the conduct and significance of which,
according to Mr. Justice Cardozo, 'vary from age to age.'
"We conclude and vote that it be declared that: (a) Section 14 of
Act 682 is null and void, being unconstitutional; (b) the Chief
Justice and four Associate Justices who inhibited themselves to
take part in this case are constitutionally qualified and
dutybound to intervene in this case; (c) the five judges of inferior
courts designated to sit in this case in their place are doing so in
illegal usurpation of positions which are not vacant and,
therefore, they should be ordered to quit them; and (d) the
Supreme Court cannot legally function as constituted in this case,
under penalty of avoidance and nullity of all its actions in the

same."
Since the above opinions have been written, we had

occasion of re-stating our positions against the validity of
section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 in several cases.
The following is our written opinion, also unpublished,
in the case of People vs. Sison, L-398:
"We object to the Chief Justice and four Associate Justices

concerned inhibiting themselves from taking part in the
cognizance of this case and, therefore, we dissent from the action
taken by the Supreme Court in authorizing, permitting, or
consenting to the transfer of this case to the second or special
Supreme Court created, organized, constituted, existing and
functioning in accordance with section 14 of Act No. 682.
"The creation of said special Supreme Court, besides being
null, void ab initio, and irretrievably and flagrantly
unconstitutional, is essentially inimical to public interest, gives
rise to confusion and chaos in Philippine jurisprudence, and is
liable to shake public confidence in the administration of justice.
"The panegyrists of the Nippon system of government, under
which a special criminal court was created during enemy
occupation, may rest satisfied with the special Supreme Court
brought to existence, if not to duplicate the abhorrent
achievements which were strongly condemned in Peralta vs.
Director of Prisons, G. R. No. L-49, at least, to sanction and
perpetuate the judical philosophy which promotes the
organization of special courts or tribunals to try specific criminal
cases in which the government or the
353
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 353

state is interested in securing preconceived objectives, no matter

how harmless, innocent, or well intended they may appear, as in
the case of the special Supreme Court in question, or how
pernicious, sinister, of evil-looking as the special criminal court
under the Japanese regime.
"The promachoi of the insolent international fraud which was
flung to our face and to the face of the whole world under the
resounding name of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere may
relish in the revival and survival of the skewed and fascistic
ideology underlying the organization of special courts to try
special criminal cases in order to serve special state aims and
purposes.
"The servile kudizers of the pretended effciency of dictatorial

systems may loudly extol the virtues of a law which, in the belief
that it is meeting an unusual situation, unforeseen by the
members of the Constitutional Convention,, boldly supersedes
express provisions of the Constitution, to create a second special
Supreme Court to wrest and supplant the jurisdiction of the
legitimate Supreme Court, existing and created under the
fundamental law, on a group of important cases, in which the
state is vitally interested. We cannot and we do not deny their
perfect right and freedom to do so. But, at the same time, we
believe that all those who, like us, are committed to the upholding
of the tenets of democracy, liberty, and justice, as sanctioned and
proclaimed in our Constitution and, at the cost of untold human
sufferings and millions of lives sacrificed in the greatest holocaust
known in human history, were consecrated in the United Nations
Charter, should exert the most unstinted efforts to oppose all
attempts to make their wrong ideology prevail, and must resist,
repel and combat any usurpation of the constitutional functions
and prerogatives of the Supreme Court.
"The evil effects of the existence of the special Supreme Court
in question have been shown at the very beginning and from the
very first decision ever rendered by said special Supreme Court.
The first and only decision rendered so far by said special
Supreme Court, the one in Duran vs. Abad Santos (G. R. No. L-
99), advances legal doctrines which are in conflict with those
adopted and sanctioned by this constitutional Supreme Court in
the two Teehankee cases (Nos. L-101 and L-278). This is just the
rumbling and ominous protasis of a judicial drama in which this
Supreme Court, created and functioning under the Constitution,
will set a line of legal and judicial principles, doctrines and rules
which may and will be opposed by an antagonistic line of
conflicting or contradicting principles, doctrines and rules set up
by the special Supreme Court, created by legislative fiat and in
pursuance of section 14 of Act No. 682. Both lines are supposed to
be binding upon all inferior courts, upon all government agencies,
354

upon all the people in general. Now the confusing and

unanswerable question is: which line is to be followed? It is
beyond our ability to answer. But this inability to answer the
question does not make us immune from shuddering at the
catastrophic consequences of the judicial chaos and anarchy
which will be enthroned.
"Each line of decisions, with the corresponding cohort of legal

doctrines, judicial principles, and judicial rules, shall be looked
upon as the last work of court's wisdom and as final authority in
our jurisprudence. Each one vying for acceptance, support and
following. Each one pretending to represent the last, conclusive,
permanent expression of legal truth. Each one pointed as a
concrete symbol of the moral sense of our people, as a monument
to the reign of law, as the happy reality of justice in action. But
then the dual lines do not follow parallel directions, where conflict
is indefinitely avoided. The conflict is not even limited to points of
contact in crossed directions. The two lines are running in
diametrically opposite directions, and the decisions are clashing
in open battle as two belligerent armies.
"Each Supreme Court, this one existing in accordance with the
Constitution and the special Supreme Court created by legislative
fiat in violation of the Constitution, shall emulate judicial
leadership. The resulting confusion cannot be betoned enough,,
The highest tribunal has been created by the Constitution to
settle finally all legal conflicts, all litigations, all differences of
opinion among inferior tribunals. But who will settle the conflicts
of opinion between two different, separate, opposing Supreme
Courts,, each one claiming to have the paramount authority and
as the exclusive repository of the last word in Philippine law and
jurisprudence?
"Both tribunals carry the appellation 'supreme.' Each one is by
antonomasia 'supreme.' If they are really, they are reciprocally
destructive. 'Supreme' means the highest, dominant, utmost,
greatest, unexceeded, ultimate, last, final, pre-eminent, foremost,
peerless. Therefore, logically, both cannot coexist simultaneously.
They are mutually self-repelling, self-annulling. It is the extreme
of betise to admit the coexistence of two 'supremes' in the same
category or order of things. The essential characteristic of a
'supreme' thing is unicity, oneness, uniqueness. It is repugnant
for it to accept a duplicate, a rival, a co-equal. It cannot have a
match, a mate, a peer. No matter of logodoedaly may justify the
coexistence of twin 'supremes'. The wildest stochastic adventure
in the realm of fiction and fantasy will be unable to hunt such a
mental teratologic product.
"In support of our stand against the constitutionality of section
14 of Act No. 682 and of this dissent, we reproduce here our
355
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 355

dissenting opinions in De la Rama vs. Misa (G. R. No. L-263), one

dated February 27, 1946, and the other dated April 1, 1946.
"For the sake of truth, we wish to make it of record that there

are Justices who are of opinion that section 14 of Act No. 682 only
grants the affected Justices a discretionary power to inhibit
themselves, if they choose it to be wise, and, therefore, does not
entail a legal and obligatory disqualification, although we do not
agree with such interpretation. And there are several Justices
who are ready to support with their votes our stand against the
constitutionality of said section 14 of Act No. 682 but decided not
to cast said votes because we failed to obtain the support of the
twothirds required by the Constitution in order that a law may be
declared unconstitutional. (Art. VIII, sec. 10, of the Constitution.)"
The decision in this case, in settling definitely a thorny and

long discussed question, like our decision in the case of
Tavora vs. Gavina, L-1257, and resolution upon the motion
for reconsideration filed therein, sets a new landmark in
the progress towards the affirmation of the principle of
stability as one of the essential safeguards of judicial
independence.
The Supreme Court has always been reluctant to use the
tremendous power to annul a law or provision of law.
Whenever possible, it has decided all doubts in favor of
constitutionality. With all presumptions of validity in favor
of the present decision, after mature deliberation, the
Supreme Court had arrived at the conclusion that there is
no other alternative than to exercise its power to declare
the section in question null and void, being, violative of the
fundamental law.
The power to set aside a statute in conflict with the
Constitution is inherent in the judiciary. The first
enunciation of this far-reaching doctrine, more than any
other achievement in his outstanding judicial career,
entitled Chief Justice Marshall to the greatness in
American juridical history accorded him by his and
succeeding generations. Because the doctrine lacked
support in the specific provisions of the American
Constitution, and it was rather an implementation thereof,
the subject continued to be debated by jurists even long
thereafter. At the time the Philippine
356

Constitution was being framed, the controversy was still

alive. To put an end to it in our country, the Convention
invested expressly the Supreme Court the power to
invalidate by a two-thirds majority unconstitutional laws

or provisions of law. In the United States, the Supreme
'Court exercise the power by simple majority. The endurIng
benefits derived by our people from the fact that Congress
may not enact laws transcending the bounds of the
Constitution and that transgressions of the fundamental
law may be checked by the Supreme Court, as the ultimate
guardian of the Constitution, are to be attributed to the
initiative, creative genius, foresight and boldness of Chief
Justice Marshall, who can justly be considered as one of the
benefactors of humanity. Contrary to the opinion of
superficial minds that measure the stature of jurists by
their ability to clutter their intelligence by a vast store of
old decisions, precedents and authorities, that buttress
their works by numerous citations, exhibiting painstaking
research and great capacity of memory, that have ready
solutions to current legal problems. by fitting to them
maxims evolved by former judges and jurists facing
problems of generations past, the truly legal luminaries are
those whose intellectual and moral grandeur is built on
original contributions to jurisprudence and the progress of
law. It was said that Chief Justice Marshall, upon
enunciating new principles of law, left to Justice Story the
task of research to find precedents and authorities to
support them. Originality and universality are the main
characteristics of the work of great men in the field. of law
and, in fact, in all other fields of human endeavor. Thales,
Phythagoras, Hippocrates, Socrates, Aristotle, Archimedes,
Christ, Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Galileo, Phidias,
Praxiteles, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Paracelsus,
Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Columbus, Magellan, Kepler,
Newton, Cervantes, Lavoisir, Rembrandt, Linneaus,
Voltaire, Darwin, Pasteur, Edison, Nikola, Tesla, Mendel,
Faraday, Madam Curie, Rizal, Gandhi, Brandeis, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, Einstein, are among the towering figures
of
357
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 357

humanity because, by their initiative, creative genius,

redoubtable courage, high ideals and foresight, they have
contributed something original and of widespread or
universal effects in their respective spheres of activity.
They are the pathfinders, the trail blazers, the leaders that
discovered new worlds and opened new horizons to
mankind. One of them is Justice Holmes who was known

as the "Great Dissenter," because his legal ideas happened
to be too far advanced to be understood and followed in the
stage of legal development of his time.
We are not to end this opinion without yielding to the
temptation of quoting the following editorial of The
Lawyers' Journal of September 30, 1946:
"COLLABORATION AND THE SUPREME COURT
"Unique and to that extent unparalleled in the history of the

judiciary of democratic countries is the recent designation of
seven judges of first instance to sit without much ado in the
Supreme Court. The object is to enable them. to hear in place of
seven Justices, including the Chief Justice, only certain
collaboration cases. The move brings to an amusing, if not a bit
ludicrous, climax the judicial farce that has been going on for
some time in the Philippines in the name of collaboration. For one
thing, it makes this country the laughing-stock of the world; for
another, it holds up to ridicule and contumely our highest tribunal
which has been and should always be the depository of our
greatest respect and confidence.
"Why seven Justices should inhibit themselves or allow
themselves to be inhibited from hearing so vital, fundamental,
and transcendental questions as suspended allegiance, suspended
sovereignty, and change of sovereignty, without regard to the
persons involved, is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary
citizen. No less is it beyond the comprehension of the ordinary
lawyer because he knows that there is nothing in the Philippine
or American Constitution. that empowers Congress to prohibit
certain Supreme Court Justices from hearing cases of paramount
importance. On the contrary, our Constitution categorically
confers on the Supreme Court the right to 'review, revise, reverse,
modify, or affirm * * * final judgments and decrees of inferior
courts.' There is not the slightest hint or suggestion that in doing
so the Supreme Court must be reconstituted or packed with non-
members.
"Where did so extraordinary and unheard-of authority to
358

designate 'temporary justices' emanate? Strangely enough, from a

simple act of the then moribund Commonwealth Congress, some
of whose leading members were themselves alleged collaborators.
The act created what is known as the People's Court and its
adjunct, the Office of Special Prosecutors. Before the High
Tribunal the question of the law's constitutionality was raised

once collaterally, but the Supreme Court, presumably out of
delicacy, declined to pass upon it squarely.
"Posed Chief Justice Marshall: 'lf an act of the legislature,
repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its
invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in
other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as
operative as if it was a law?' It's a pity the great American jurist
did not answer his own question with the backing of his learning
and authority, because there is no doubt that it has a direct and
important bearing on the present case. However one may look at
it, the act is utterly repugnant to the Constitution.
"Reads section 14 of the People's Court act: 'Any Justice of the
Supreme Court who held any office or position under the
Philippine Executive Commission or under the government called
Philippine Republic may not sit and vote in any case brought to
the Court * * * in which the accused is a person who held any
office or position under either or both the Philippine Executive
Commission and the Philippine Republic or any branch,
instrumentality and/or agency thereof?'
"The recurring question is: Where did the defunct Congress
derive its authority to limit or restrict the power of a
constitutionally co-equal body? Certainly not from the
Constitution which alone can confer it. 'Congress and the
President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the
Constitution.' So ruled the United States Supreme Court. On the
accepted theory of separation of powers, the Supreme Court
stands or should stand supreme in all judicial matters as well as
in all matters affecting the judiciary. So careful were the framers
of our Constitution in safeguarding the independence of the
judiciary that they even banned the old 'rigodon de jueces.'
Enjoins the Constitution: 'No judge appointed to a particular
district shall be designated or transferred to another district
without the approval of the Supreme Court.' If the mere transfer
of a district judge requires more than legislative or executive
approval, how much more when it comes to replacing or
substituting Justices who were facing no judicial investigation or
impeachment?
"And yet, here is a law, supposedly valid, which not only
circumscribes the power of the Supreme Court, but what is worse
359
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 359

casts a gratuitous reflection on the honesty, integrity, and

impartiality of its members. Here is a law which grants authority
to the Chief Executive to designate even cadastral judges to sit as

'temporary justices' in the Supreme Court and supplant the bona
fide members without the courtesy of denunciation or
impeachment. With all his strength and popularity the late
President Roosevelt did not wield half that power despite the
mandate he had received from the electorate and the willingness
of the American Congress to help him, push through his New Deal
program.
"Supposing all the Justices had served during the enemy
occupation. Would not the law have the effect of destroying a
constitutional body by setting up through presidential designation
a temporary Supreme Court with temporary members who may
not even be legally qualified to sit there and whose designation
need not have the approval of the Commission on Appointments,
another constitutional body? Imagine a Supreme Court thus
constituted! As a matter of fact, the new 'Justices' now form the
majority and can easily overrule the four remaining Justices.
Their verdict will be cited as the Supreme Court's decision when
in reality it is not.
"Another feature of the Act, which some judges and practising
attorneys believe clearly violates the Constitution is that under it
two men charged with the same crime must be judged by two
different bodies of the Supreme Court: one real, permanent, and
constitutional; the other, temporary and unconstitutional. It
violates the equality-of-treatment clause contained in the first
section of the Bill of Rights. Provides this clause: 'nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.'
"In the instance given, how can there be equal protection of the
laws when a fictitious or temporary Supreme Court with
conceivably prejudiced members, disguised by statute as Justices,
will pass judgment on your case if you served under the
Philippine government during the enemy occupation, whereas a
person who did not serve will be judged by the true, de jure,
'Supreme Court?
"Those who have studied the history of the Federal Supreme
Court may well wonder if so outspoken and independent a body
would have tolerated so flagrant an encroachment on its powers
and prerogatives to its obvious shame and humiliation. They may
well wonder and even seriously doubt if that august and
courageous body would have sanctioned tacitly the validity of an
act which, in practice, tends to abolish it by the simple strategy of
creating in its stead a temporary body whose members have not
and possibly could not have legally qualified as such."
360

FERIA, J., dissenting:
I dissent.
The legislative powers of Congress granted by the
Constitution on all matters are general and absolute,
subject only to the limitations placed upon them on some
particular subject, and therefore Congress is free to
legislate on matters not expressly or by necessary
implication restricted by the Constitution.
"The rule of law upon this subject appears to be that,
except where the Constitution has imposed limits upon the
legislative power, it must be construed as practically
absolute, whether it operates according to natural justice or
not in any particular case * * *. Any legislative act which
does not encroach upon the power apportioned to the other
departments of the government, being prima facie valid,
must be enforced, unless restrictions upon the legislative
authority can be pointed out in the Constitution, and the
case shown to come within them." (Cooley's Constitutional
Limitation, 7th ed., pp. 235, 237.)
To the question, whether or not Congress had power to
add to the preexisting grounds of disqualification of a
Justice of the Supreme Court, the affirmative is evident,
because there is no limitation placed by the Constitution on
the general legislative power of Congress on the matter.
It is self-evident that a law on disqualification of judges,
provided for in sections 8 and 608 of the old Code of Civil
Procedure and incorporated in Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, is not a law on pleading, practice, and procedure,
but a substantive law. The provision of the old Code of Civil
Procedure deals not only with pleading, practice, and
procedure, but also with substantive laws, such as those
relating to adoption, statutory construction, guardianship,
causes of disqualification of judges, and others; and yet
most of them have been substantially, if not literally,
incorporated in the Rules of Court, for convenience's sake,
and not because this Court has power to alter or modify
them. And our Constitution does not contain any limi-
361
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 361

tation on the power of Congress to legislate on the matter.

On the contrary section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution
provides that "All laws of the Philippine Islands shall
continue in force until the inauguration of the

Commonwealth of the Philippines, thereafter such laws
shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with the
Constitution, until amended, altered, modified or repealed
by the Congress of the Philippines." As said section 8 of the
old Code of Civil Procedure as incorporated in Rule 126 is
not inconsistent with the Constitution, and the majority
admits it in. stating in the decision that "the framers of the
Constitution deemed it fit, right and proper that said
provisions shall continue to govern the disqualification of
judicial officers", it follows that the Congress has power to
enact section 14 of the People's Court Act adding thereto
other causes of disqualification.
The same is true even assuming that the laws providing
for disqualification of judges are rules of pleading, practice
and procedure, and have been repealed as statutes, and
declared Rules of Court subject to the power of the
Supreme Court to alter or modify the same, according to
section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution, because the
same section 13 provides that "Congress shall have power
to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure.
(a) It is argued in the decision of the majority that
section 14 of the People's Court Act is repugnant to Article
VIII of the Constitution, which provides in its section 4 how
the Supreme Court shall be composed and how it may sit,
and in its section 9 ordains that they "shall hold office
during good behavior, until they reach the age of seventy
years, or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office."
This contention is not tenable because it is based on a
wrong premise. The Constitutional provision that the
Supreme Court shall be composed of eleven Justices who
may sit either in banc or in division, has no bearing on the
question of disqualification of some members therein;
362

and the designation of a judge of the lower court to sit or

temporarily act as a member of the Court in a particular
case does not affect the composition of the Court, By such
designation, the members of the Supreme Court is not
increased and the sitting in banc or division is not thereby
affected, because the judge designated takes the place of
the disqualified member in the disposition of the case in
which the latter can not take part. And the provision of
section 9 of said Article VIII that the members of the Court
shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the
age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge
the duties of their office, is not inconsistent with the
designation of another to temporarily act in the place of the
member disqualified, because the latter is not thereby
removed or deprived of his rights and emoluments as such,
and has the right to continue exercising his powers and
duties in all other cases in which he is not disqualified to
act.
A contrary construction of the above-quoted provision of
sections 4 and 9 of Article VIII would lead to the absurdity
that Congress can not absolutely legislate on the matter of
disqualification, and the existing laws on the matter, such
as the disqualifications provided for in Rule 126, can no
longer be enforced after the approval of the Constitution,
because it would be repugnant thereto, It is evident that
"due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial
and disinterested tribunal. Every litigant, including the
State, in criminal cases, is entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and the law intends
that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not
wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent. To
this end reasonable regulations must be made by the
legislature in the matter of prescribing certain
disqualifications of a judge to act." (30 American
Jurisprudence, section 53, p. 767.) The provisions of the
Constitution that so many members shall compose the
Supreme Court who may sit in banc or in division, and
shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the
age of seventy years old or become
363
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 363

incapacitated, does not mean that they shall sit

uninterruptedly as such in all cases, at all cost, and
without any exception, for it would be an absurdity to
presume that each and every one of them must necessarily
and uninterruptedly act in each and every one of the cases
submitted to the Court, irrespective of whether they are
physically or legally incapacitated or disqualified to act.
Under such farfetched contrary construction, the
provisions of section 8 of the old Code of Civil Procedure on
disqualification of judges, incorporated in Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court, must be considered as repealed by the

Constitution; for if the Constitution prohibits the
enactment by Congress or some other law-making power of
a law providing for disqualification of judges including
Justices of the Supreme Court, said Rule 126 can not be
continued in force by section 2, Article XVI of the
Constitution, on which the majority relies to hold that said
disqualifications continue in force. Because said section 2
prescribes that only laws then in force which are not
inconsistent with the Constitution shall continue in force
until the inauguration of the Commonwealth, and remain
operative thereafter. It reads as follows: "All laws of the
Philippine Islands shall continue in force until the
inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines;
thereafter, such laws shall remain operative, unless
inconsistent with this constitution, until amended, altered,
modified, or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines."
On the other hand, if the provisions on disqualification of
judges contained in Rule 126 are not inconsistent with the
Constitution and they are continued in force by section 2,
Article XVI thereof, they may validly be amended, altered,
or modified by Congress as expressly provided therein; and
therefore section 14 of the People's Court Act, which is but
an amendment thereof by Congress in so f ar as treason
cases are concerned, can not be repugnant to the
Constitution.
The other ground advanced in the decision in support of
the conclusion that section 14 of the People's Court Act
364

is unconstitutional, is that it deprives the Supreme Court

of its appellate jurisdiction, among others, over certain
cases where the penalty may be death or life imprisonment,
conferred by section 2 (4) of Article VIII of the Constitution.
According to the decision, the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court may be exercised only by the Chief Justice
and ten Associate Justices, and sections 4 and 5 of said
Article VIII do not admit any other composition of the
Supreme Court; and "to disqualify any of these
constitutional component members of the Court * * * is
nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its
jurisdiction," for the deprivation of a member of the Court
of his judicial powers is equivalent to the deprivation of
powers of the Court itself.
This argument or contention is clearly untenable,

because it is based on a misconception or confusion of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as an institution with the
judicial powers of its members. There is a selfevident
distinction between the Court as an institution, and the
members who preside the Court in order that the latter
may act. The Supreme Court as an institution, is different
from the members thereof. The Supreme Court may exist
with its jurisdiction even though no Justice has yet been
appointed to preside it. The individual members of the
Supreme Court may be disqualified to act by reason of
relationship with the parties or interest in the subject
matter, etc.; but the Court can not become disqualified.
Even though one or more of its members are incapacitated
physically or disqualified legally to act, the Court may still
exercise validly its own jurisdiction. The members of the
Court individually have no jurisdiction to try and decide
cases, but the jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court as
an entity or institution. Therefore the disqualification as
well as the physical incapacity of one or more of the
members of the Court, does not and can not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction.
In case of physical incapacity or legal disqualification of
some members of this Court and there is no quorum,
365
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 365

the Governor General before and the President now are

authorized by Congress to designate judges of the lower
court to sit temporarily in the Supreme Court. And
although the majority of the members of the Court are not
in such cases regular but designated temporarily to sit
thereof in a particular case, the Court so constituted is the
same Court established .or recognized by the Constitution
exercising the same jurisdiction. The framers of the
Constitution, in providing that the Supreme Court shall be
composed of one Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices,
could not have the intention of inhibiting Congress from
authorizing the designation of judges of the lower court to
act temporarily in case some of the regular members of the
Court are, physically or legally, disqualified to act, and the
able or qualified ones are not sufficient to form a quorum
and act; otherwise the functions of the Court in such cases
would be paralized for a certain period or perhaps for a
long period of time.
(b) There is nothing to support the conclusion in the

decision that Congress can not empower the President to
designate a judge to sit temporarily as a member of the
Supreme Court in case of disqualification of some members
thereof, based on the ground that section 9, Article VIII of
the Constitution requires that members of this Court must
be appointed by the President with the approval of the
Commission on Appointments. Because it is obvious that
said section 9, Article VIII, ref ers to regular members of
the Supreme Court, and does not apply to judges
designated temporarily to act in certain cases as Justices of
the Supreme Court in lieu of those disqualified, in order
that this Court may have a quorum and act. To require the
confirmation by the Commission of the judge so designated
by the President would be to make the designation tardy
for the purpose intended, and the person so designated
regular member of the Supreme Court thereby increasing
the number of Justices of this Court.
(c) The same may be said as to the argument that judges
of the lower courts can not be designated by the
366

President to sit and act temporarily as Justice of the

Supreme Court, because they do not have the qualifications
which, according to the Constitution, a person must have in
order that he may be appointed Justice of the Supreme
Court, That section 6, Article VIII, of the Constitution,
which prescribes that "no person may be appointed
member of the Supreme Court unless he has been five
years a citizen of the Philippines, is at least forty-five years
of age, and has for ten years or more been a judge of record
or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines," refers
to regular members of this Court, is too clear to need any
demonstration. As the Constitution requires that a regular
member of the Court must have such qualification, and is
silent on the qualifications of those who may be designated
by the President to act temporarily in lieu of one of the
members disqualified, it evidently follows that Congress
had power to authorize the President to designate any
judge of the lower court although he may not have the
qualifications of regular members of the Supreme Court,
not only because of the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius, but because of the principle that Congress has
ample and general legislative powers on all matters, unless
they are limited or restricted by the Constitution expressly

or by necessary implication.
Furthermore, as judges of the lower courts must have
previously been appointed as such by the President with
the approval of the Commission on Appointments, it is to
be presumed that they are qualified not only for the
position for which they are appointed, but also to be
designated by the President to sit temporarily as Justices
of the Supreme Court by the President as contemplated by
law, and it may also be presumed that the President will
only designate, among them, those who, by ability and
experience, are better qualified.
If, as contended, an act of Congress that empowers the
President to designate judges of the lower court for that
purpose is repugnant to the Constitution, because
367
VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 367

said judges do not have the qualifications a member of the

Supreme Court should have, and their designations are not
approved by the Commission on Appointments, section 8 of
the old Code of Civil Procedure incorporated in Rule 126
could not be applied to Justices of the Supreme Court and
enforced, contrary to what the decision holds in order to
avoid the absurdity which necessarily follows from the
majority theory. Because section 2 of Commonwealth Act
No. 3, a complementary provision of Rule 126 as applied to
Justices of the Supreme Court, which authorizes the
President to designate judges of the Court of Appeals to sit
temporarily as Justices of this Court in case of
disqualification of some members thereof, should have to be
considered as repugnant to the Constitution under the
same theory. If Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and section 2
of Commonwealth Act No. 3 are not inconsistent or
repugnant to the Constitution, there is absolutely no
reason why section 14 of the People's Court Act No. 682
should be considered as unconstitutional.
I believe that the provisions of section 14 under
consideration are objectionable and defective. First,
because they assume that the Justices who have occupied
positions during the Japanese occupation are disqualified,
either because they are presumed to be partial to indictees
who had occupied offices or positions during the Japanese
occupation, or because they would be in an embarrassing
position should they vote for defendant's acquittal; and
second, because they empower or enable the President of

the Commonwealth before, and of the Republic now, to
select and designate the judges of the inferior courts which
should temporarily sit as Justices, with the qualified
members of this Court, in each particular treason case,
instead of empowering the President to designate, once and
for all, the judges who should sit temporarily as Justices in
all cases in which the Justices of this Court are disqualified
for having occupied public office during the Japanese
occupation. But I can not, to my regret,
368

Silvestre vs. Sanchez
subscribe to a decision which declares said section 14

unconstitutional.
The advisability or unadvisability, as well as the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of a law is for the
legislative and not for the judicial body to determine,
unless the unreasonableness constitutes a violation of the
constitutional limitations. Courts should construe and
apply the law, but can not legislate or encroach upon the
legislative power of the government. As Chief Justice
Marshall said in the celebrated case of McCulloch vs.
Maryland: "When the law is not prohibited, and is really
calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the
government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of
its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes
the judicial department, and to tread on legislative
ground." (20 Law. ed., p. 309.) It is a maxim that a law
must be upheld unless its unconstitutionality is so clear as
to have no reasonable doubt on the subject.
Petition to have section 14 of Commonwealth Act No.
682 declared unconstitutional is denied.
Section 14 of People's Court Act declared
unconstitutional.
_____________
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Vargas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vargas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vargas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/29/2018 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080

JORGE B. VARGAS, petitioner, vs. EMILIO RILLORAZA,

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DlSQUALIFICATION OF

298 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

2. ID.; ID.; ACT REPUGNANT TO CONSTITUTION

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PEOPLE'S COURT ACT, SECTION 14,

4. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; ACTUAL REMOVAL NOT

VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 299

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

of the powers and fulfillment of the duties appertaining to

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES IN

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF

Court Act have no quarrel with legislative authority to

300 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

one party litigant. Such legislative power might thus be

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JUSTICES TO BE APPOINTED

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PERMANENT COMPOSITION OF

VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 301

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

organization of the Supreme Court under the

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TEMPORARY JUSTICES OF

Per PERFECTO J., concurring:

10. MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.—

11. LAWS OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.—In granting the

12. FIGHT FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE.—In less than

13. SECTION 14 OF ACT 682 NULL AND VOID.—Section 14

14. TRIAL OF MARSHAL PETAIN.—Mongibaux, the former

302 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

15. AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.—Section 14 of

16. INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS.—Article

17. REMOVAL OF JUSTICES.—The members of the

18. POLITICAL BLUNDER OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.

19. PRINCIPLE ESSENTIALLY WRONG.—The wrong

20. OUR REFUSAL.—We refuse absolutely to sanction or to

21. CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT.—No power in

22. JUSTICE.—Cicero, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle

28. THOUGHTS AND IDEAS OF GREAT THINKERS.—

thinkers which remain fresh and young through the ages

VOL. 80, FEBRUARY 26, 1948 303

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

of the wooly mammoth, buried in the Russian tundras,

24. FORERUNNERS OF THE ERA OF ATOMIC ENERGY.—

25. JUSTICE HOLMES READ ARISTOTLE.—The ignorants

26. TIME AND STUDY NEEDED.—Deep thinking and study,

27. VOTE RESERVED.—Wanting to "have an opportunity of

28. NULL AND VOID.—The designation of the five judges of

29. OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.—The

30. APPOINTMENT.—According to section 5 of Article VIII of

304 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

on Appointments. This provision can in no way be

31. SECTION 14 OF ACT 682.—Section 14 of Act 682, in

32. CITIZENSHIP REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION.—As a

to learn, to think, and to feel as a born Filipino citizen

33. AGE REQUIREMENT.—Under section 6 of Article VIII of

34. TEN YEARS OF LAW PRACTICE.—The Constitution