LETTER OF ASSOC. JUSTICE REYNATO PUNO TO THE C.A. 5.
5. Petitioner cites case of Justice Victoriano, former Presiding Justice of the
November 1990 | Peralta, J. | Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution
PETITIONER: Associate Justice Reynato Puno
SUMMARY: Petitioner Associate Justice of the CA addressed a letter to the SC,
seeking the correction of his seniority ranking in the CA. Issue lies in whether
Chapter 1 of the BP 129 as amended by EO 33 of President Corazon Aquino can
be apply to him and thus, will entitle his claim to precedence and change his
seniority ranking from 26 to 11.
In a resolution court en banc, Court granted Justice Puno’s request. The present
motion for reconsideration filed by Associate Justices Jose Campose Jr. and Luis
Javellana, 2 associate justices affected by the ordered corrected, was granted by
the SC. SC ruled that Puno cannot claim precendence in pursuant of BP 129 as
amended by EO 33 because the CA after the EDSA revolution is an entirely new
court. Thus, the provision cannot be invoked in relation to old appointments
when claiming precedence or seniority and should only have a prospective
application.
FACTS:
1. Puno’s pertinent appointments before EDSA revolution and EO 33:
- Associate Justice of the CA – June 20, 1980
- Appellate Justice in the First Special Cases - January 17 1983 (This is when
CA was reorganized and became Intermediate Appellate Court pursuant to
BP 129 entitled “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary”)
- Appointment to the government (ceasing to be member of the Judiciary) –
November 1984
2. The aftermath of the EDSA revolution in February 1986 brought about the
reorganization of the entire government including the Judiciary. To
reorganize the lower courts, a Screening Committee was created. Exercising
legislative powers by virtue of the revolution, President Aquino issued EO
33 to govern the reorganization of the Judiciary.
3. Screening Committee recommended the return of the petitioner as Associate
Justice of CA and assigned him to rank 11. When the appointments were
signed, his number changed to 26.
4. Petitioner alleges that the change in his seniority ranking runs counter
inadvertently to the provisions of Sec. 2 of the EO 33 amending BP 129. It
states that “…the Associate Justice shall have precedence according to the
dates of their respective appointments or when the appointments of two or
more shall bear the same date, according to the order in which their
appointments were issued by the President. Any member who is
reappointed to the Court after rendering service in another position in the
government shall retain the precedence to which he was entitled under his
original appointment, and his service in the court shall, for all intents and
purpose be considered as continuous and uninterrupted.”
(emphasizing the Aquino is presumed to have intended to comply with her
own EO 33  correction will not provoke any constitutional confrontation)
CA who was transferred to Ministry of Justice then reappointed the CA –
his seniority ranking is not affected, so in this case, EO 33 was applied.
6. Court en banc granted Justice Puno’s request. No written opposition yet to
the request of Puno.
7. A MFR of the resolution was later filed by Associate Justices Jose Campose
Jr. and Luis Javellana. They contend that present CA is a new court, so
Puno cannot claim that he was returning to his former court. They added
that Puno should have filed with the Office of the President and not directly
to the SC. (They pointed out that Puno has indeed filed but this was not
approved. Non-approval should be respected.)
ISSUE/s:
Whether the CA is a a continuation of Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate
Court or a new court such that it would negate any claim to precedence or seniority
admittedly enjoyed by petitioner in the CA and IAC existing prior to to EO 33 –
NEW COURT, so no claim of precedence or seniority
RULING: Motion for Reconsideration of Associate Justices Jose Campose Jr. and
Luis Javellana granted. Seniority rankings of the CA including that of petitioner
are recognized and upheld.
RATIO:
1. Present CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or IAC
existing prior to the EO 33, for it was created in the wake of massive
reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of Corazon
Aquino in the aftermath of EDSA revolution.
2. Provisional (Freedom) Constitution provides that the Aquino government’s
position is a mandate is taken from “a direct exercise of the power of the
Filipino people”; it came to existence in defiance of the existing legal
processes and 1973 Constitution. Thus, the organization the government
including the revamp of the Judiciary signaled a point where the legal
system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino.
3. Court holds that the CA and IAC existing prior to EO 33 was abolished by
the revolution. Under EO 33, CA is an entirely new court with
appointments thereto having no relation to earlier appointments to the
abolished courts.
4. The reference to precedence rank contained in Sec. 2 of BP 129 as amended
by EO 33 refers to prospective situations as distinguished from retroactive
ones.