A Fearless and independent Supreme Court

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title
A Fearless and independent Supreme Court
Language
English
Year
1963
Subject
Philippines. Supreme Court.
Rights
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Fulltext
A FEARLESS AND INDEPENDENT SUPREME COURT CHRISTMAS is with us again with its spirit of joy, its wish of goodwill, its hope fcrr continuing peace and 'J1TOS'Pe:rity. We hear Christmas songs, we see Christmas lights, we note people exchanging the greetings of the s~on. But the natural spontaneity of Yuletide is · not there .because the people continue to suffer from u.nemp1oiiment, soaring commodity prices, bigger budgets, higher tax:es, and needless, excessive government spendi!1f1. Two years of Macapa9al administration have only brought two years of economic upheavals and difficulties. In the~e two years, there has been only one shining, redeeming feature like a beacon piercing the night~the com·a.ge of our Judiciary. To specify, our Supreme Court has decided delicate, fundamental contToversies with frank1)2ss, wisdom, and great independence of mind. Often it has decided against Presidential wish, opinion and action. Ren• dered without fear ' fir favor, its resolutiofis have been warmly received afld applauded by the Bar and by the people whose trust and confidence in our Judiciary is implicit and unshaken. f'• L~t us review some ~ these far-reaching decisions anrl precedents. 1. The first is the case of Dominador Aytona vs. A~ dres Castillo (G.R. No. L-19137, Jan. 20, 1962) which is a wami11§-'"119'ai'RBt abuse of Presidential prerogatives. On. Dee. 29, 1961, along with 350 odd appointments he had made, President Garcia appointed Aytona. as Governor of the Central Bank. Branding those as "midnight appointments", newly-sworn in President Macapagal cancelled th~ appointments, including Aytona.•s, on Dec. 31, and appointed Castillo instead cm Jan. 1, 1962. Aytona challenged Castill"'".~ right as Central Bank governor. The Supreme Court ruled that such midnight appoinr.ments, including Aytona's, was an abuse of Presidervtiat prerogatives by filling all -vacant positions so as to deprive the new Macapagal administr!Ztion of making its own appointments. Legally, the eipiration of the term of the Fourth Congress, ·which also ended the life of the Cammission on Appointments, brought about the lapse and ineffectuality of such appointments. Aytona's appointment had not been confirmed by the Commission OT1J Appointments of the · Fourth Congress, hence it ceased, lapsed and expired on Dec. 30, 1961. Castillo was declared the rightful Central Bank governor. 2. The high tribunal also served notice' that the Commission on Appointments is an independent. ... body whose membership cannot be changed with every change .of political parties, in the House particula_rly, as to affect conffrmations of appointments by the Commission. In the case of Ca1'ws Cunanan vs. Jorge Tan, Ji-. (G.R. No. L-U721, May 10, 1962), Cunanan was appointed by President Ga,-. cia successively in 1961 first a~ act-ing deputy administra,.. tor, then as deputy administrator of the Reforestation .Admini8tration. On April 9, 1962, six senato1·s and seven con.. gressmen, purporting as the Commission OT1J Appointments, rejected Cuna.nan's· .ad interim appointment; this resulted in President Macapagal naming Jorge Tan, Jr., in Cunanan's stead. The case involved changes in membership of the Commission that acted on Cunanan's appointment. A Com. mission was validly constituted when Congress opened. on Jan. 22, 1962; however, the House effected a new political lineup on March 21, 1962, hence House membership in the Commission was also revised. The decision is thcit: the Commission is independent of Congress because its powe1·, emanate from the Constitution; so, arvy change in the House does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of House membership in the Commission. The rejection of Cuna-nan's appointment was declared null a~ void. 3. Ag~inst the present Administration, the Supreme Court prohibited indefinite, prejudicial suspensions of public servants. In Paulino Garcia vs. Juan Salcedo, Jr. (GR No. L-19748, Sept. 13, 1962), Dr. Garcia was the lawf11l chairman of the National Science Development Board (NSDB) since July 15, 1958. When the Macapagal administratipn took over, he was asked to r~sign,· then the President designated Dr. Salcedo, Jr. as acti~g NSDB chairman on Feb. 17, 1962; and for refusing to resign, Dr. Garcia was charged with electioneering and placed under preventive suspension on Feb. 18. According to the Cipil Service Law, preventive suspension lasts only 60 days; so, when. it expired on April 19, 1962 and his suspension was not lifted, Dr. Garcia brought his case to the Supreme Court. Decision: the 60-. day P1"Wentive suspension applies to both classified and unclassified civil service. To suspend Dr. Garcia indefinitely until final determination of administrative charges against him would nullify the fixity of his tenure ( 6 years) and render useless the condition ( 60-day preventive suspension) imposed by the Civil Service Law. Dr. Garcia. was immediately reinstated; subsequently, charges against him~ were jou:rll), untrue, hence dropped. !AWYBRS IOUll*L Page _353 4. Freedom of speech and the right to be heard fou'l.d the Armed Forces upon authority of Hecha1UY1Ja. He claimed new vindication in Eliseo Lemi vs. Public Works Sec. Bri- it was authorized by President Macapagal as com;mangido Valencia, et al. (GR No. L-20768, Feb. 28, 1963). Lemi, der-in-chief, for "military stockpile purpose&." holder of a radio broadcasting franchise, operated his Tadio station DZQR, dutifully paid his operation licens:e fees annually down to May 23, 1963. Then on Jan. 11, 1963, the Radio Control Offi.ce personnel armed with a court search warrant, interrupted DZQR's program, seized the station'.~ tran.miitter as not the One authorized for use, and thereb'lj' halted the station's broadcasting operations. The seizure, sai.d the high tribunal, amounted to closure of the station, hence it was illegal. No radio station license, according to Sec. 3 of. the Radio Control Act, Shall be. revoked without 9iving the li.censee a hearing. Respondents were ordered to return the transmitter to Lemi and to allow his station to continue broadcasting: 5. The Supreme Court sided with the Administration in the case of Genaro Visarra vs. Cesar Miraflor (GR No. .L-20508, May 16, 1963). Former President Garcia appointed Visarra as member of the Commission on Elections on May 12, 1960; but President Macapagal named Mira.flor i'i November, 1962 on aswmption that Visarra.'s term had expired in June, 1962. The case involved tenure succession, with Visarra serving only the unexpired balance Qf Commissioner Gaudencio Garcia's fixed term which expired on June 20; 1962. 6. The Supreme Court also differentiated proprietary and governmental functions in relation to declaration of strikes in the case of Associated Workers Union vs. Burea1t of Customs as arrastre operator. The tribunal ruled that in impliedly authorizi'W government employees engaged in proprietariJ functions to ioin. labor organizations wh'ich impose the obligations to strike or to ;oin in strike, th.? Government has pla!:ed itself under the provisions of the industrial Peace Act insofar as employees are conctfrn8d. It then has consented to be sued; furthermore, statutor4 provisions authorizing the Bureau of Customs to grant by contract to any private party the right to render arrastTi:? servi.ces definitely· imply that such service are deemed by Congress to be proprietary or non~overnmental function. 7. The high tribunal dealt the Administration a heavy blow when it declared as illegal the recent foreigtwic'!! importatioru in deciding the case of Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Secretary Rufino Hechanova (GR No. L,21897, Oct. 22, 1963). JZOilo Tice planter Gonzales last Sept. 25, 1963 sought to stop the importation of 67,000 tons of fOTeign rice by But the importation was rightfully declared illegal. Under Rep. Acta Nos. 2207 and 3452, it is unkwful for any person, association, COTpOT~tion or government agency-the Armed Forces is a government agency-to import rice and corn into this country. Buffer stocks are only to be held as national reserve to meet the occurrence of calamities or emergencies. There were non~ s-µ.ch at the time of importation. Under Commompealth Act No. 1, the Government may obtain rnsources for national defense only ''during national mobilization." There was no such mobilization. Under Comm. Act No. 136 also, requisitions and purchases must be directed to domestic entities, rwt fareign ones; there must be pr~ference also for materials produced in the Philippines or U.S. This was not done in the cas:? of rice importation. Rep. ·Act 3452 also speC.i/i'~S ·that any rice importation is to be done by· priv~t~ .. Parti.es; it prohibits the Government from doing sp. . 8. The most recent case is that of Lucio Libarnes v.;, Executive Secretary et. al. (GR No. L-21505, Oct. 25, 1963) concerning an attempt to tePminate illegally the service:? of a civil sen..•ice employee. Libarnes was police chi~ 'Jf · Zamboanga City since March 11, 1959. But on May 'i6,.' 1963, President Macapagal named defendant Miguel Apostol as acting Zamboanga City police chief, and Libarn.es Was asked to give up his office in favor of Apostol. He· refused. The tribunal, siding with Libarnes, deczeired th~t h~ is u member of the civil service, hence he cannot be removed or suspended except for cause. The attempt to terminat~ his services constitutes illegal removal from office .. THESE are Supreme Court decisions of lasting and far· reaching value and significance. They affect na:tional poli· cies, the very life of the Government, and the sacred tenure of public officials an.d employees. It is to the honor and prestige of our Judiciary that it renders decision~ without influence, fear or favor. The Executive may abuse its own powers, Congress may commit errors, but the people can rely on the Supreme Court as their in:ipregrrrab!e constitutional garrison of last resort for redress, protection. and ;ustice. Well may this Christmas be a happy, merry one for us all as we find iudicial integrity and courage in the interest of national w~lfare! Page 354 UWYERS JOURNAL December 31, 1963