Rare Periodicals

Debate on Senate Bill No. 170 Amending or Repealing Certain Sections of the Judiciary Act of 1948.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text

DEBATE ON SENATE BILL NO. 170 AMENDING OR REPEALING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1948 May 5, 1954 - 11:00 A.M. SENATOn PRIJl.'IICIAS. Mr. President, I now ask for immt>diate consideratfon of Senate Dill No. 170, the amendment-s to t.hc Judiciary Act. PRESIDENT. Consideration of Senate Bill No. 170 is in 01·der. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. The sponsor of the measure, Mr. President, is the distinguished Chairman of the Cvmmittee of Justite, the gi<ntleman from Batangas, Si:;nator Laurel. I Mk that he bf' recognized. PRESIDF.NT. The gentleman from Batangas has the floor. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President and gen!kmen of the Senate: Senate Bill No. 170 which is now the bill submitted for the ccnsiderat:ion of this Honorable Body, Is the 1·esult of what might be considered a compilation of the different measures submitted to the Committee on Justice, and to a Yery great extent, incurporatcs ~ea­ tures taken from the reorganizaifon bill submitted by Senat.:ir M:abanag as well as the recommendations made by th~ Department or Justice and likewise the recommendations at one time made by As.. sociate Justice Ramon Diokno, now deceased. Sen&te Bill No, 170 is not a complete reorganization t1f the judiciary, but in the opin'.on d the Committee on Justice incor110rates what might be called-the principal features which need to be incorporated in a legislative measure in order to improve the present organization of the judiciary as well as certain reaturei; of fundamental character which must be inserted in the 1:1ew reorganization measure. I atr. goinir to refer to the principal features which we have incorporated in this bill. The first' has reference, Mr. President, to the increase of the salaries or thP, Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Surreme Court and the Chief or the Presiding Justlct. and Associate. Justices of the Comt cf Appeals and ~lso the judges of the cou~ts of first instance. '.J'his feature of the bill is not a new one because, as the m..:mbcrs of this body will reeall, last yea1· we approved the Senate bill concurred in by the HousP of Representatives providing for the increase of the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices of t,,e Court of A ppee.ls and the judg(!s of the courts of first inste.!'.ce, That bill, however, was THE SUPREME COURT .. . without patronage, without propaganda, without force; but not with.out Power - not without: th~ power in it .'lnd in ourselves which makes for Righteousness, Our forefathers hrought it forth, our fathers have preserved it for us; snd we now will m:i.intain it for ourselves, our ehildren and our children's children. And what is this ·Constitution of t:he United States? It is the cht?.rter of the national existence and stability; and ii. is more. It is the charter of the powers given to the Republic, of the powers reserved to the States, of the inali~nable rights in th<' people. h' is their instrument. They made it.. They maJf' i~ not just to c~nstitute a government, but also to preserYe their rights - the bl{:ssings of liberty to ourselves and our po~terity. They know i'hat any sufficient government would become Etronger than any one of themselves. They crc>etcd 3 government, nnd gave it power - so much and no more - and they 81\Serted rights in States wJ•ich they could control, rights in themselves singly aud a.s a whole which none could violate. They set up a Court to deelare the m<'!tes and bounds 0£ i..'hu powers they were vesting. and made it independent, to define, to d('(:lare, and to sffirm thl.' powers they were holding to themselves, or to their States, The Constitution is no device th block the Jlet~ple's progress. IL is the device of the people to preserve themselves, their St3te11, their local self government, their in:i.lienable rignts, their homes, and \..'he future of their children. The people made it and only they can changti it - and only in the way they providerl. Let \'etoed by the chief exeeutive then on the gi.ound that the bill w:i.s unconsl'itutional because t.he hill treated of various matt~rs and these matters are not mentioned or referred to in the title ~f the bill. So that the veto by the former chief executivf' \Vas based more vn a technical grotmri than on anylhiug else :md it seems tha.t even the former exeeutive was not opposed to the aug. mentation or increases of the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Justices of l'he Court of Appeals :md the judges of the court.!. of first instance. lt is hopc1l that we have eliminated even the technical objection of the former chief executive, and that is the re-:ison why the increase is heing i·eiterated in this measure which is practically a rep1·oduction of the 'oill which was vetoed by the former chief executive. That is one feature, and It is not necessary for me to argue in ravor of the increase because this Honorable Dody having already ap;iroved the increase in last: year's session, I suppose, unless conditions have changed or opinions hnve changed, this Body will likewise approve what it had approved last year. The second feature oi this reorganization bill is the abolition of judges at large and cadastral j udges. The reas,m for th~ abolition is, first/to make the organization of courts vf general juriSdici'ion which are the courts of first instance mi:.re simple. In othl!r worris there will only be one kiT!d of judges of courts of fir~t instance and thP.se judges are the district judges of courts of first in~tance. While probably in the past there might have been a ne<Xl for the appointment.' of cedastral judges and, perhaps, judge!l at large, or even at one time, auxiliary judges it seems that conditions have changed now, and even the cadastral judges do not <levote their time exlusively· to the hearing and tl'ial of cada!li'ra.i cases. With th:? conditions having changed and in view of the fact that nil these different judges, whether C:istrict judges, judges at: large, or cadastral judges, all belong to the sa.me category, namely, they are judges of courts of fir!lt instance, it would be more · simple in the plan of judicial re.organization to make all these judges district judge!l. So that in orcier to implement this provision which is intended to simplify our judicial organizai'i<'H, we provide for the a.bso-rption of the judgea at large and the cadastral judges by considei:ing them as judges or the district to be distrib'.lted and c.thers denounce it; let others criticii-c it; the people will preserYe it as the charter of their libertiei::, their right's, their votes, their democracy, their place in the life of their Republic. It £tands between them and the possibility of a dictator. ThC!y require eYery public officer to take solemn oath to maintain .:lnd support it,, They give fto man power save upon this oath. Sometimes we forget; sometimes impatience ove1·ccme!I our bet.. ter judgment. But at last we remember. Down in our hearts •.ve know that so long as the Constitution stands, the Republic wW stnnd; so long as the Constitution stands, our rights are secure cur homes are our own and none may make us :1fraid. It restri.ins the over-reaching hand of power. It stop;; the army on the Chreshold of the cabin. It aSS-Orts the dignity ol man, his pli.ce in the earth and the freedom of his soul. Congress is mighty, but the Constitution is mightier. Presidents are powerful, but the Constitution is more powerful. Courts nr~ grea\:, but the Constitution i!l greater. Laws are str~ng, but the Constitution is stronger. And it is so because the Constitution is the expressed will of all of the p.?ople, the supreme law of the land, to he nltered only by· themselves, and therefore the living soul of demOCl·acy. The Court and the Constitution: - They st.-ind to fall to~ gether. The Constitution creates the Court', and the Court de. clares and maintains the Constitution, To weaken one is to weakrn the other. Tc. destroy one is to destroy the ot.'her. Tc weakrin either is to wc:>.ken the foundations of our° Republic; to destroy either is to destroy the Republic. August 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 379 / assigned to the different judicbl dislricts which -we have increased, as another feature of the ·reorganization, from !:ixteen judicial districts to thirty-three judicial districts. This is ::t logical prop'.>sal, hecause having' provided for the abolition of cadas,, t:ral judges and judges at Jarg<! and converting them intc district judges, we have to assign them to thf' different judicial dislri,cts and the assignment would be made by the Secrdary of Justice with the approval of the Supreme Court. Another feature of i'his judicial reorganization i~ the increase of judicial districts from 16 to 33 as I have indicated. It has been suggested that we increase the number of judges of first inst'ance. We are not increasing the number of judges of first instance. We h;.i.ve the same number of judges, around 107 or thereabouts. First, in thlo' inte1·est of economy; because after a careful study and after presenting the tabulaVed statemeut which is made a part vf the e>.planatory note to Senate Bi!l 170, your Committtee has 1·eached the conclusion that with the proper ~pportionment and assignment of all t!he judges of districts these 107 or thereabouts number of judges if properly assigned and made to work in tht: diffcrenl districts, would do away with the nt:cP.~sity of increasing th~ number of judges of first instance. That is the reason, Mr. President und Gentlemen of the Senate, why in one of the sectfons here we have increased the number of judges for the different judicial districts, and tha.t is also the reason why we have inci:e=i.sed ~e judicial distri:::ts from lG to 33.,. Now, Mr. President, there is t'.not.'her feature in this reorganizxtion bill which I have f<wgotten to state. Under this bill, we ar~ curtailirg the powers of . the Secretary of J ustice in the transfer or assignment of judgl:S not c·nly from one district to another, but also from one province t.b tinother province within the district. Formerly there was a compla.int - and, I think, well taken - that as the judges-at-large nnd t.'he cadastral judges have no judicial districts, and as the Judiciary Act of 1948 permitted the transfer or assignment of these judges who have no districts, from one district to ~nother, without the intervent.fon of the Supreme Court, we have had quite a number of cases; but there was what we call handpicking of judges to try special cases or cases political in character perhaps; thaf from the point of view of the administration, would bdter be hied by these judges-at-large or cadastral judges specifil'a.lly transferred from one province to nnother for the specific purpose. Now, with the abolition of l'he judges-at·large o:inO the cadastral judges and with each judge of the Court of First Instance h.!tving his own district, then the technical ground thnt these judges l·efore ha•·c no districts, the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges, could no longer be invoked because all the judges arf:: district judges and therefore fall within the prohibition of the Constitution tliat no judge of a regular district shall be transferred from one district: to another without the approval of the Supreme Court. We have gone further than th'lt, and although this prob'.l.bly is tiot the time to complain against th~ policy of the present admi· nistration, we have gone further in t.'he prohibition with rdercnce t~ the trnnsfor of judges. from one district to another, Mr. P~es­ ident, but as I have indiceted, we prohibit in this bill the tra.ns1 fer of judges from one province to anoi'her province within the district without the approval of th~ Supreme Cou:·t. x x x Now, unless the Senate is i·eady to consider amendments, pHsonally, I would prefer that we postpone the consideration of this mf'asurP unt'il tomorrow, to give way to the SHies of amendments that it seems the members of this Body would like to propose. MOCION DE APLAZAMIENTO SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, in vif::w cf the bet thRt some members ha.ve amendments to make to this bill, I ask that furthe1· consideration of the same be pc.stponed untH f-.omor1·ow to enable said member!! to o::ubmit their amendments in propn form. THE PRESlDENT. Is there :my objection on the part of the Senate to posCpone fui:ther consideration of this 1-ill until tomorrow, in ordP-r that everybody could subnlit his respective amrndments? CSile11ceJ The Chair hears none. The m"tion is approved. CONSIDERACION DEL SENATE BILL NO. 170 ICONTINUACION) May 13, 1954 -11:25 A.M. SEN ATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, I mo\·e for the resumption of the consideration of Senate Bill No. 170, the Judiciary Bill. Tlie distinguished gclltleman from Batangas, Senator Laurel, was the sponsu~ of the measure. EL SEN, LAUREL CONTINUA SU PONC:NCIA THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Batangas has the floor. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, I have very little tc. add to the explanation that I offered in sponsodng Senntc Bill No. 170 providing for an amendment and revision of certain sections of the Judiciary Act of 1!148. As I stated before, several mea· sures were presented in connection with the Judiciary Act of 1948 .:md I understand that a few days ago the lowe1· House just approved a measun on the same subject, although not exactl'Y identical as to certain points with reference to the reorganization of thC' Judiciary Act of 1948. It is not necessary for me, Mr. President, to repeat what I have stated before regarding the importance of the judiciary particularly with reference to the maintenance of the faith and confidence of 11ur people in the administration of justice. It is sufficient for me to state that faith in the &dininistration ~f ju:;;tice is only po!lsible if the judicial deJ>artrnent is manned by men who arc competent, willing to wotk and actually work. We also have in the Committee on Justice !levcral measures the most importa.nt of which probably is the one presented by the distinguished gentleman from La Union from which bill we culler! or tc,ok certuin important features in order not to do awa;y with but merely to postpqne the consideration of matters which involve details with refcren.ce to the proposed Hmendment to the Judiciary Act of 1948. The former Justice of the Supreme Court., now <ieceased Don Ramon Diokno, has nlrn suggested certain amendments, n'.nd as I said, just a day c..r so ago, the House ot Reµr.,)sentatives likewise presented amendments to the judiciary act. But, Mr. Prc:>sident, as the members of this body . well know, your Committee on Justice had centered the amendments around, I think, four important points, the first referring to the increase of compensation of the members of the judiciary from t he Supreme Court to judges of the courts of first instance, increa3ing the salary of the chief justice from P16,000 to 1'21,000 per annum and the associate justices from P15,000 to 1"20,000 per annum, nnd the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals from Pl3,000 tt> !'16.00() per annum and the associate members from P12.000 to P'15,000 per anuum, and 1'1so the salary of judges of the courts of first instance from Pl0,000 to !'12,000 p~r annum. That is the first point touched upon in this bill, namely, foe increase of the salaries of the chief and associate justices of the Supreme Court and th!! presiding justice and the associate justices ?f the Court of Appeals and the judges of the courts of first instance. The second feature which is in;portant to mention in this connection has fa do with tfie redistricting of judicial districts by increasing' the number of. judges in the different Judicial districts without, however increasing the number of the judgc:>s of the courts of first in~ta..nce. And the original hill which your humble sr.rvant sponsored the other day m C<l..iperation with the Deµartment of Just.ice, incorporated in the explanatory note a tabulated stat~­ ment based on the number ?f cases pending in the different courts of first instance of the districts not disposed of, believing that for the purpose of dc:>termining the number of judges of the courts of first instance for the different judicial districts, it would perhaps be a good idea tp send more judges to those districts where there are more pending cases undisposed of. Ho"'.ever, IJS th.:: members of this body will recall, at the suggestion of the distinguisl1ed gentleman from Quezon, another basis of classification or distribution was made. This time the basis is the number of docketed cases in the differ~nt courts of first instance; and, Mr. President, that is now the basis of the apportionment and assignment 'of the dif380 THE LA WYERS JOU.RNAL August 31, 1954 / assigned to the different judicbl dislricts which -we have increased, as another feature of the ·reorganization, from !:ixteen judicial districts to thirty-three judicial districts. This is ::t logical prop'.>sal, hecause having' provided for the abolition of cadas,, t:ral judges and judges at Jarg<! and converting them intc district judges, we have to assign them to thf' different judicial dislri,cts and the assignment would be made by the Secrdary of Justice with the approval of the Supreme Court. Another feature of i'his judicial reorganization i~ the increase of judicial districts from 16 to 33 as I have indicated. It has been suggested that we increase the number of judges of first inst'ance. We are not increasing the number of judges of first instance. We h;.i.ve the same number of judges, around 107 or thereabouts. First, in thlo' inte1·est of economy; because after a careful study and after presenting the tabulaVed statemeut which is made a part vf the e>.planatory note to Senate Bi!l 170, your Committtee has 1·eached the conclusion that with the proper ~pportionment and assignment of all t!he judges of districts these 107 or thereabouts number of judges if properly assigned and made to work in tht: diffcrenl districts, would do away with the nt:cP.~sity of increasing th~ number of judges of first instance. That is the reason, Mr. President und Gentlemen of the Senate, why in one of the sectfons here we have increased the number of judges for the different judicial districts, and tha.t is also the reason why we have inci:e=i.sed ~e judicial distri:::ts from lG to 33.,. Now, Mr. President, there is t'.not.'her feature in this reorganizxtion bill which I have f<wgotten to state. Under this bill, we ar~ curtailirg the powers of . the Secretary of J ustice in the transfer or assignment of judgl:S not c·nly from one district to another, but also from one province t.b tinother province within the district. Formerly there was a compla.int - and, I think, well taken - that as the judges-at-large nnd t.'he cadastral judges have no judicial districts, and as the Judiciary Act of 1948 permitted the transfer or assignment of these judges who have no districts, from one district to ~nother, without the intervent.fon of the Supreme Court, we have had quite a number of cases; but there was what we call handpicking of judges to try special cases or cases political in character perhaps; thaf from the point of view of the administration, would bdter be hied by these judges-at-large or cadastral judges specifil'a.lly transferred from one province to nnother for the specific purpose. Now, with the abolition of l'he judges-at·large o:inO the cadastral judges and with each judge of the Court of First Instance h.!tving his own district, then the technical ground thnt these judges l·efore ha•·c no districts, the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges, could no longer be invoked because all the judges arf:: district judges and therefore fall within the prohibition of the Constitution tliat no judge of a regular district shall be transferred from one district: to another without the approval of the Supreme Court. We have gone further than th'lt, and although this prob'.l.bly is tiot the time to complain against th~ policy of the present admi· nistration, we have gone further in t.'he prohibition with rdercnce t~ the trnnsfor of judges. from one district to another, Mr. P~es­ ident, but as I have indiceted, we prohibit in this bill the tra.ns1 fer of judges from one province to anoi'her province within the district without the approval of th~ Supreme Cou:·t. x x x Now, unless the Senate is i·eady to consider amendments, pHsonally, I would prefer that we postpone the consideration of this mf'asurP unt'il tomorrow, to give way to the SHies of amendments that it seems the members of this Body would like to propose. MOCION DE APLAZAMIENTO SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, in vif::w cf the bet thRt some members ha.ve amendments to make to this bill, I ask that furthe1· consideration of the same be pc.stponed untH f-.omor1·ow to enable said member!! to o::ubmit their amendments in propn form. THE PRESlDENT. Is there :my objection on the part of the Senate to posCpone fui:ther consideration of this 1-ill until tomorrow, in ordP-r that everybody could subnlit his respective amrndments? CSile11ceJ The Chair hears none. The m"tion is approved. CONSIDERACION DEL SENATE BILL NO. 170 ICONTINUACION) May 13, 1954 -11:25 A.M. SEN ATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, I mo\·e for the resumption of the consideration of Senate Bill No. 170, the Judiciary Bill. Tlie distinguished gclltleman from Batangas, Senator Laurel, was the sponsu~ of the measure. EL SEN, LAUREL CONTINUA SU PONC:NCIA THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Batangas has the floor. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, I have very little tc. add to the explanation that I offered in sponsodng Senntc Bill No. 170 providing for an amendment and revision of certain sections of the Judiciary Act of 1!148. As I stated before, several mea· sures were presented in connection with the Judiciary Act of 1948 .:md I understand that a few days ago the lowe1· House just approved a measun on the same subject, although not exactl'Y identical as to certain points with reference to the reorganization of thC' Judiciary Act of 1948. It is not necessary for me, Mr. President, to repeat what I have stated before regarding the importance of the judiciary particularly with reference to the maintenance of the faith and confidence of 11ur people in the administration of justice. It is sufficient for me to state that faith in the &dininistration ~f ju:;;tice is only po!lsible if the judicial deJ>artrnent is manned by men who arc competent, willing to wotk and actually work. We also have in the Committee on Justice !levcral measures the most importa.nt of which probably is the one presented by the distinguished gentleman from La Union from which bill we culler! or tc,ok certuin important features in order not to do awa;y with but merely to postpqne the consideration of matters which involve details with refcren.ce to the proposed Hmendment to the Judiciary Act of 1948. The former Justice of the Supreme Court., now <ieceased Don Ramon Diokno, has nlrn suggested certain amendments, n'.nd as I said, just a day c..r so ago, the House ot Reµr.,)sentatives likewise presented amendments to the judiciary act. But, Mr. Prc:>sident, as the members of this body . well know, your Committee on Justice had centered the amendments around, I think, four important points, the first referring to the increase of compensation of the members of the judiciary from t he Supreme Court to judges of the courts of first instance, increa3ing the salary of the chief justice from P16,000 to 1'21,000 per annum and the associate justices from P15,000 to 1"20,000 per annum, nnd the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals from Pl3,000 tt> !'16.00() per annum and the associate members from P12.000 to P'15,000 per anuum, and 1'1so the salary of judges of the courts of first instance from Pl0,000 to !'12,000 p~r annum. That is the first point touched upon in this bill, namely, foe increase of the salaries of the chief and associate justices of the Supreme Court and th!! presiding justice and the associate justices ?f the Court of Appeals and the judges of the courts of first instance. The second feature which is in;portant to mention in this connection has fa do with tfie redistricting of judicial districts by increasing' the number of. judges in the different Judicial districts without, however increasing the number of the judgc:>s of the courts of first in~ta..nce. And the original hill which your humble sr.rvant sponsored the other day m C<l..iperation with the Deµartment of Just.ice, incorporated in the explanatory note a tabulated stat~­ ment based on the number ?f cases pending in the different courts of first instance of the districts not disposed of, believing that for the purpose of dc:>termining the number of judges of the courts of first instance for the different judicial districts, it would perhaps be a good idea tp send more judges to those districts where there are more pending cases undisposed of. Ho"'.ever, IJS th.:: members of this body will recall, at the suggestion of the distinguisl1ed gentleman from Quezon, another basis of classification or distribution was made. This time the basis is the number of docketed cases in the differ~nt courts of first instance; and, Mr. President, that is now the basis of the apportionment and assignment 'of the dif380 THE LA WYERS JOU.RNAL August 31, 1954 ferent judicial districts which al'e now, as I understand and if I ter now which has reference to the prohibition of the t?"ansfer remember correctly because I don't have the bill in my hand, S3 or as:;ignm'=nt ol judges from nne .:listrict to another under the ciistricts, so that while the districts under this mt:isure have bee1i Constitution. And I was going to say, Mr. President, under the increa11ed, as I think, from sixteen or thereabouts to thirty-three, Constitution no transfer or assignment can be made of a regular the number of judges in all the different districtd by and large judge of a district from his di:;;trict to another judicial district remains the same because not all districts have been increased without the approval of the Supreme Court. Thnt was the law, on the basis suggested by the distinguished gentleman from Que- thJ.t is still the law. But as we had experienced before !.here were zon. That is, we have increased not only the judges but by and j}'dgcs in districts, that is to say, cadastral judges and judges-at... Jorge as I have indicated, the number of judges as~igned to thej:uge, who haYe no districts nnd therefore the Secretary of Jusdiffercnt districts without increasing the actual number of judges ;ylc may take advantage of this point in the Constitution in cerof the courts of first instance which, I understand and if I rt.mem;;,r~~in cnses by transferring cadastral judges and judges-at.large ber corre<:tly, is around 107. That is the actual number of judges frnm the places they were assign~d to for the purpose of trying speci. of first instance including of course the cadastral judges and judq-ea- fie cases in other districts where the powers-that-be are interested at-large and the j uJges of fir&t instance occupying pcrmam.nt nnd in securing effeetive action, whether of conviction or acquittal, in regular appointments in the different d_ istricts. This is the second criminal cases. And that is the reason, Mr. Senator why as one fe~ture of this bill. of the features of this bill we are abolishing cadastr~I judges and The third feature is the general end a.lmost complete prohibition regarding the transfer or assignment of judges from one '.listrict to unother without the approval of the Supr~me Court. Mr. Pi·esident, I desire to invit<? attention to the fact that undr.r the Constitution judges of first instance of regular district cnnnot be tt·nnsfcrrcd l'r assigned from me district to another without the l:.pproval of the Supreme Comt. But even under the provision of / ~he Constitution prohibiting ::;uch i;,ssignment and tranSf<>r there wt!re cadsstral judges and judges-at-large who naturally have no ,....dist.rids and, therefore whose assignment and transfer could bl'! dfectunted ftom one district to nnother apparently withot:t vi.l)\ating the Constitution, giving rise to what we have complained against in the past, namely, the practice of handpicking judge~ for the purpose of trying specific cases In which influential officials might be interested for the purpose of insuring certain definite results in connection 'vith the trial of such cases. SENATOR ZULUETA. Mr. Pr<>sident. will the gentleman yield? THE PRESIDENT. ThP gentleman may yield if he wishes. SgNATOR LAUHEL. I will be ve!'y happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Jloilo. SENATOR ZULUETA. I want to know from the gentleman from Batangas whether when we approved the Co:.1stitution there were already carlastral judges? SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, this idea of the class.. ification of judges of first instance, if the gentleman will allow me tn take a little more time, ii; not new. You will ren1ember we have auxiliary judges before. We do not have them now. We call them judges-at.large, we c:i.11 them cadastral judges. These cadastra.l judges i>xisted even before the Constitution because one of the prcpondMant policies of the American administration then was to give emphasis to the Jii;position of land cases givini riae to what we call cadastral survey in the different provinces and municipalities and, thei'efore, the necessity of cree.ting thi11 special position which is known as cadastral judges, as part and parcel of what we nad established as our judicial system. Is that clear to . the Sena.tor? SENATOR ZULUETA. I still doubt if it was the real intention of our Constitutional Convention to approve a law protecting the immov?.bility of judges by giving the Supreme Court the authority to transfer judges from on,. district to t:.nothcr. Di·n't you believe, Mr. Senator, that we are not prol2Cting ci>da!:ltrnl judges by transfering them from one place to anc.ther? Jf that is the case, Mr. Senator, why are we not proposing to make ca. dastral judges .also district judges? SENATOR LAUREL. That is ihe foutth point I will take up. I am just enumerating fc1· thtt information cf thia Honore.hie !ifod[hi~hem::~~!. chai"g~sen~·hic!:i wt~1~r~n!~::~:u~~izc0b~p!~:a~i~~a!; judges, then I mentioned t~rcdistricting and the increase of judicial distric~s anci the dishict judges without increasing the number of judges of first instance 11nd then I am referring to this matjudges..at..large. We are establishing just district judges, but that is n point that I propose to take up later, perhaps the last point, in my explanation of the impcrtunce and the capital point of the bill th:it is now submitted to this Honorable Body for consideration. SENATOR ZULUETA. Then Mr. Senator, for your Honor nnd for everybody, is it not a good 1101icy to maintain the immovability of judges, whether they arc regular or cadastrnl judges? AcC'ording to Your Honor, !n this bill, you are creating cadnstTal judges too. SENATOR LAUREL. Only, so that all of them will come Under the p1·ohibition of the Constit.ution that none of them can be transferred from one district to another judicial district without the appmvat of the Supreme Court. SENATOR ZULUETA. I thank you for the assurance. SENATOR LAUREL. We are following the pattern Of the law in th~ protection of the immovability of the regular judges by creating district cadastral judges. That is one of the results. Iii addition thP Secreta.ry of Justice can no lon6'!T mobilize an}'· E:l)-called cadastrai judges and judges-&t...large for the purpose of tr}·ing spC'cific cases in other parts of the archipelago. SENATOR ZULUETA. nut how about the cadastrnl judge~! SENATOR LAUREL. The district. cadastra.1 judges will tn• those cases and the jurisdiction will, of course, fatl under the corresponding judges of the district. In a given district the1·e may be many judges, for instance, in the district of Cebu, Cavite, Rizal and Palawan we may have three or four judges. So, at the ba.sis of these nun1ber of cases that al'iSe from year to yea1, there will be district judges assigned to th<.! different districts. In that district you will find judges ready to take care of those cr1~e'I without opening the way for the Secretary of Justice to pick judges to try those cases. SENATflR ZULUETA. That means, Mr. Senator, that we arc r.liminating the judges.at-large. SENATOR LAUREL. We want a.s far ae possible to eliminate judges..at·large, tSENATOR ZULUETA. " rhat is only what I want to know. ~ SENATOR LAUREL. (Continuing.) Mr. President, the hand-Picking vf ju~gcs is a bad practice, it is not conducive to the proper administration of justice, and if it is conducive at all to anything it is ct1nducive to the absolute loss of confidence of the people in' the administration of jm;tice, and if we are fair to ourselves and just to ourselves, the remedy is in our hands then - we should clvse the door to anything thdt would give to tile Secretary of Justice or even to ourse\ve11 the power to handpick a judge for the purpose of trying our political enemies, for all we know, bf-cause that is not justice. The administration of justice must take its ordinary course because justice has been pictured as p, beautiful lady who is supposed to be blind, who is supposed to k.11ow 'the merits and demerits of the case, btlt is not supposed to see the parties. It is supposed to do justice and decide chses on August 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL d81 the basis of their own merits. If I am correct, Mr. President, in inserting in our law a provision which would make the hand1iicking of judges impossible, then the fourth fea.tme wh:ch I have mentioned, I think, is essential to the improvement of the administration of justice and therefore should be approved in thut respect. Now, Mr. President, this is quite important, - the fourth featun• is quite important and I want to confess, Mr. President, that having been at one time a humble mPmber of the judicia1·y and now a member of the legal profession, I ha,1 e had my own difficulties in trying to remedy a 3ituatiun in order nol to be accused ~f having served as a political iustrumcnt for the purpose of asking certain people in the judiciary, p11rticularly because it is of the essence of a good judicial system that the judges should remain in office during good behavior 01· fot· life, and then one of the conditions for tl1e stability of judicial institutions is the p-:!rmancnt office or stability of judicial positions, and that is why they call this the security of tenure. Not only the judges must be secure in their position, but they must be secure in their. compensation. Not only must .they· be secure in their position lln.:l compensation but they ml1st be secure in their official station, and that is the reason why it is more difficult and more so under this bill to transfer a. judge of First Instance frum one district to another, making all judges con1e under the prohibition of the Constitution t.hat these judges can only be transferred from one district to another With the approval of the Suprcmt': Court. And not only is the security of tenure and security of compensation and security of official compensation, as for as it is practicable to do so, imporbmt, but there are other guarantees and general principles intended t:-0 surround the members of the judiciary who have lost essential security and guarantee tha.t would make the judiciary an independent, courageous and fearless instrumentality of the g"Overnment in order to promote the welfare and establish permanent.. ly the faith of our people in the just and equal administration of la.w in our beloved country. Mr. President, the reason why I have prepared the draft which is the four important innovations in the law is the following: As I look back to the fact and study the historical development of the administra\.'ion of jtl'stice in our counh'y since the inauguration of the Philippine Commission which enacted the original Act 136, generally known as the First Organic Law in the Philippines affecting the establishment of the judiciary, and as I watched the dcvelopml:!nt of the law in its progress and in its growth up to the time we reached the period when we were permitted to draft our own Constitution, I notice that in establishing courts of general jurisdiction, which are the Courts of First Instance, after the classification and gradation of the differE:nt kinds of courts established in our country, while I realize that in those days probably it W'lS conceivable to disintegrate and provide for the different classifica· tions with reference fu the Court of First Instance, I must be frank, Mr. President, to confess that now in this state, considering the fact that we are now in the position to establish a judicial system which is responsive to our needs and it is t.'he result of our own experience as a free people in this country that when we establish a court of general jurisdiction, such as the Court of First Instance, we should not establish any classificatfon or any gradation. The Court of First Instance and a judge of the Court of First Instance must be a judge of the Court of First Instance with the same compensation, with the same dignity and honor, wii'h the same category. And there will no longer be established in this country a system where a cadastral judge recei\•es PS,400 a. year and a judge· at-large receives f'9,000 and a judge of the district receives Pl0,000. If they are judges of First Instance, then they should be treat'ed the same way because they are judges of the same jurisdiction. You cannot classify the capacity of people in the judiciary by simply calling them judge-at-large or cadastral judges. In point of fact if I may be allowed to say so, I know even of cerl!ain judges-at· large and cadastral judges who are better than certain district judges. If I am correct in that statement, then why do we classify the same group of judges? Why? - after making this classification, the Supreme Court, \.'he Court of Appeals, the judges of First Instance - we make another classification of cadastral judges, auxiliary judges and judges-at-large. And now we come to the municipal judge or justice of the peace court. Therefore, Mr. President, rationally and scientifically speaking, from the science of law and legislation, I believe that there should be only one classifical'ion and one nomenclature for judges of First Instance with the i;ame degree, with the same category, with the same rank, with the same' honor and with the same privileges and the same compensation, and t.'hat is the Court of First Instance. That is my first plea for abolishing the judges-at-large and the auxiliary judges. In my second reason, Mr. President, I have almost hesitated. When we approved the Constitution in the Constitutional Convention, some of whose members are now members of this honornble body, when we approved that prohibition with l'Cference to assignment and transfer of judges from one district to another, we never thought that some people would make use of the technical met.hod of excluding the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges, so that while the powers were prohibited from transferring a judge of a judicial dis· trict from one district to another, they could do what they want:ed with reference to the judges-at-lari,-e and the cadastral judges. And ' in order to be consistent and rationalize the philosophy which we have adopt:ed through this measure, we will not give any effect, not even for our partymen in this goven1ment, to transfer these cadastral and auxiliary judges for purposes purely political. If I were to be a partymen, if i wel'e to get up on this occasion as purely a partymen, why should I deprive the Secretary of Justice who is a Nacionalista of certain powers? Someday we mighC have to do what other people did in the past. Someday we might need to make use of oppression in order to win an election. But, Mr. President, I got up to speak to you all, gentlemen of the Senate, not as a Nacionalista, because I wane to establish a system here that would work honestly, efficiently and well and a credit to our people, a system of judicial organization that would serve the great and paramount purpose not of my party whose interest undoubtedly is secondary, but to promote and enhance and prot.'ect and c.onserve their faith in the integrity and the impartiality of the administration of justice in the Philippines. That is the second reason. And fo1· this and more, I can keep on explaining the great purpose. That: is why I had to apologize, Mr. P1·esident, to Senator Mabanag when I just picked up certain features which if we could only approve, these features alone, without attending to details, then we shall be happy and in my opinion we shall have succeeded in having grasped the fundament'al principles which are basic, which are essential and which are "ital if we were to have a system of administration of justice which is to last, to last not for any given party, hut a system that will secure and guarantee the int.'erest of all litigants, of all lawyers anJ of all the people at large. This is among the reasons, Mr. President, why almost in the last paragraph of the provision I proposed the abolition of the position of judges at largf' and cadastral judges. I said that I hm·e to emphasize this point because I shall appear perhaps, we shall all appear before the verdict of history, accused of having impaired and affected the tenure of office, the security of tenure of these people. But I have ¥n,y humble way studied very carefully the constitutional nnd legal problems involved, and I have reached the conclusion that t.'he judges at large and the cadastral judges, as well as the judges of districts of first instance, ar·e legislative courts and not constitutional courts. The Constitul'ion provides, Mr. President, that the judicial power, under Article VIII, Section 1, shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law. This, verbatim, or literal, is what the Constitution provides in its Section 1 of Article VIII. In ot.'her words, there is only, insofa1· as the Constitution is concerned, one Constitutional court, and that is the Supreme Court. Insofar, therefore, as the Constitution says, there shall be one Supreme Court. That is final. There cannot be two, there cannot be none. There must be one Supreme Court. How many inferior courts? The Constitution does not say, and wisely enough, Mr. President. I am happy to testify to the meaning of this portion of the Constitution. Happily enough, the Constitution leaves the determination of the inferior courts and the apportionment of their jurisdiction and the like to Congress. This is what I mean wh~n I say that these inferior courts are Jegisla382 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL August Sl, 1954 tive courts, and if they are legislative coUrts, while we should safc:guard against impairing the security of tenure and compen;;ation a~ Jong as the office is there, in o~ur w:ork and in our obligation to give our people a good and efficient overnment and therefore in the exercise of our powers to reor izc this government to serve our people, we can abolish positions which are not Constitutional. And I emphasize this point, Mr. President, because I know that this is a bold step on my part and I shall probably have to appear and defend my attitude, and I might just as well express my views &o that I can refer to them in my public utterance.'!. SENATOR SUMULONG. Mr. President-, may I interrupt the gentleman for a few question? I should like to clarify this point about the effect of this bill on the incumbt!nt judges of the courts of first instance. THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yield if he so desires. SENATOR LAUREL. Gladly. SENATOR SlJMULONG. Now, I understand Your ilcnor to say that this bill, if approved, would abolish the positions of judges at large and cadastral judges and that in the opinion of Your Honor that would be within the constitutional powers of Congress because those positions are legislative and not constitutional in character. I can say that I am (;ntirely in accord with the gentleman from Batangas in abolishing the positions or judges at lii.rge to avoid the pernicious practice of allowing the Department of Justice to assign special judges for specific cases. But what is the effect of this bill, if approved, on district judgc:s, will they need new appointments in order to continue as such district judges? SENATOR LAUREL. If they are in one district and they are assigned to another district, I think they will need new appointments because I think, once a judge in one district, he cannot be a judge in any other district without being appointed anew. That has been decided by our Supreme Court and that is still n good law. SENATOR SUM:ULONG. Let us take a concrete example. Suppose somebody is now a district judge, say in Pasig, Court of First Instance of Rizal. If we approve this bill, will that judge there continue to be a district judge in the Court of First Instance of Rizal without need of a new appointment or a new confirmation? SENATOR LAUREL. Suppose you have the same district, because if there is u reorganization of these districts you have to have new appointments-.let us take Rizal. We have not changed the district. This second disti·ict has the same district judges, Are you going to reappoint them when you have not touched them? SENATOR LAUREL. I don't think so. I am respom;ible for that because I thought that in order to elevate to some degree the standa~d of our judges, it might. be a good idea that before one can be appointed judge to the court of first instance, he must have had ten years of law practice or service equivalent to law practice. But, of course, this is a new law. These people are already here on the basis of their previous qualification of five years. I don't think that we can make the law have a retroactive effect by applying it to judges holding their respective positions according to their former qualifications. ·That is my humble opinion. SENATOR SUMULONG. But does Your Honor have any objection if, for purposes of clarity, to remove doubts on the matter, we approve a proviso that those who are now district juciges shall continue to be such judges without the need of any new confirmation or appointment in their respective districts? SENATOR LAUREL. Although it is not necessary in this bill, anything that will make our position certain and anything that will make the expression of our view and ideas effectively clear, I would favor, so that I will welcome any clarification on that point. SENATOR SU.MULONG. Now, turning to this matter of judges at large and cadastral judges whose positions we are going to abolish under this bill, if they are not extended appointments as district judges, will they be entitled to any gratuity under auy law? SENATOR LAUREL. That will depend on whether they have satisried the requirements of the Osmeiia Act or some other law in order that they may be entitled to the beRefits of those Jaws, in point of age or in point of service, for instance. SENATOR SUMULONG. Has the Senator inquired as to how many of these cadastral judA·es and judges at large will be affected adversely and would be left without any resource, retirement pay or gratuity if we approve this bill? SENATOR LAUREL. I have made quite an inquiry, Mr. Senator, and I secured a complete list or the Jlames and the records of services, and I even went further-I asked the Secretary of Justice who amongst them he would like to recommend and how many would he leave out if he wel·e to rkci1.le this case, beeause 1 do not want to makf\ people miserable. They will hate me or blame me. 1'hey will say: "I am jobless because Senator Laurel abolished my position." So I don't want to ha\·e enemies, not even political enemies. I am tired of having enemies. I want to live in peace new with people. And according to him there are very few, probably just around six. SENATOR SUMULONG. So that only six will be without But if your plan is to transfer a judge of the distl'ict of Rizal, let ....!!!Y' · us. say, to Pa~lpa~ga, ·instead or. making him a judge of thl'! dis- - SEN ATOR LAUREL. I am not: nssuring-please do not mistr1ct where Rizal is, you make him a judge o( the district where understand me--1 am not making a positive statement about the Pampanga is, it is my humble opinion that you need a new appoint- number of those who will be kicked out. I don't know. But I ment. want to satisfy my own conscience that I did not do anything SENATOR SUMULONG. In other words, even if we approve this bill, a district judge can continue to be a district judge of the same district, provided his territorial jurisdiction has not been changed by this bill. SENATOR LAUREL. I think so. SENATOR SUMULONG. But I notice, Your Honor - I am looking at the corrected copy, I don't know about the original copy -that we are changing also in this bill the qualifications of t:he judges of the court~ of first instance-instead of five years of \ practice and five years residence in the Philippines, we are making it ten. Now when we change the qualifications of the district judges, does not Your Honor t hink that that might affect the tenure of the incumbent district judges? unjust. But out of thirty-three, more or less around six are on tab. SENATOR SUMULONG. That is exactly the same feeling that I am entertaining, Your Hvuor, that if we are going to abolish tht> positions of tht!Se judgC>s, at least, W<' should consider also what would be the future of those whos(' positions will be abolished. That is why I am asking, as from Your Honor's own words I heard Yuur Honor s'.ly that there me cadastral judges and judges-at-large who arc more competent than the district judges, and following that same thought, I thought that we should inquire what will happen with these judges, especially those who are competent and who are efficient. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. s~m:.tor, I would also give you an expression of what had occurred in my mind in connection \vith August 31, 1954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 383 thlO!se cadastral judges and judges at large if we make them ipso facto district judges under this bill. The first difficulty is this. A name was mentioned who was no good and 011e who ought not to be in the judiciary because his reputation is so bad, and as a cadastral judge, he gets fS,400. Now you make him judge of the court of first instance. You promote him from PS,400 to Pt0,000, and then we promote the judges of the district with another promotion of two thousand pesos. Then you give him an increase of salary of four thousand pei;:os. That is the first observation, and the second observation is I think the obsel'\'ation made by the gentleman from Quezon, Senator Tafiada. He asked Ille how we can automatically conve1t them into district judges because, he said, that needed legislative action. A judge is a judge made only by an appointment of the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, and he suggested that the first thing for me to do even if I became unpopular is to absorb them, make them all judges. Then I could not answer the observation of the distinguished gentleman from Quezon. Here is a judge known to me as a bad one, almost known by everybody, and still you give him a promotion of four thousand pesos. It is not simply right to promote a bad judge. On the other hand, there is that legal and eonstitutior.al aspect raised by Senator Tafiada. How can we convert them into district judges by simply enacting a law without executive appointment? And so I swore to the legality and constitutionality of the legislation abolishing this position. Not that Wt' were discriminatinl?. It is not my purpose, it is not with a Ill.ck of intC'ntion, it is not hatred, political or any character, which caused us to abolish this position. We abolished all these positions because we believe that the interest of our country and the interest of the pe-0ple demand that we take such action on the part or Congress. I am revealing the mental process even when we were discussing this measure with the members of the Committee on Justice. SENATOR SUMULONG. I am complet&.ly in accord with the opinion of Senator Tafiada that if we abolish the positions o.f judges at large and cadastral judges we cannot provide in this bill that a former judge-at-large and former cadastral judge would not be district judges without new appointment because that will be encroaching upon the powers of the Executive and the Commission on Appoinbnents. But I was thinking that if we are going to abolish the positions or judges at large and ca<lastral judges and some of them will not be appoinh•d district judges perhaps it woulcl be fair also to provide some sort of i·rtirement pay for those who will not be reappointed. SENATOR LAUREL. Many of them will be able to take advantage of some benefits. But I did not study thl\t article. They will have to take advantage of any retirement benefits they Rl'C entitled to. SENATOR SUMUI..iONG. Because if they arc not entitled \o retirement under our general laws, they cannot receive any gratuity and they would think there is injustice or malice beii1g committed against them. SENATOR LAUREL. We will take c-.i.re of those cases ir. \-he same manner we provided for the retirement of Justice Moran and some of those people who have left their positions to accept other government positions. I think we will take care of them. SENATOR PERALTA. Mr. President, will thf! gentleman yield to a few questions? THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Batangas may yield if he wishes. SENATOR LAUREL. Gladly. SENATOH PERALTA. It is in the role of a humble student of law that I have stood up to ask some questions to the foremost authority on Constitutional Law, SENATOR LAUREL. Thank you, Mr. Senator, I do not deserve it. SENATOR PERALTA. I am somewhat worried until I he'trd the gentleman from Batangas raise the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary. I was wondel'ing whether the gentleman from Batangas stated a fact when he said that only thirty men will ho affected by this bill. While it is only true there were only 33 judges at large and cadastral judges, yet under the same principle that the gentleman enunciated tl1at infe.rior courts may be abolished by the congressional action we are indirectly threatening the tenure o( office of the justices of the court of appeals, judges of the court of first instance and all judges of the peace, and I was wondering whether the gentleman from Batangas does not agree with me that this is an indirect manner of threatening all these members of our judiciary by abolishing now thll offices of judges at large and cadastral judges implying that should certain members of the court of appeals be, by popular acclamation, deemed as what the gentleman from Batangas said "crooks" that we would abolish also the court of appeals. Now, would not the gentleman agree with me that this is an indirect way of threatening the independence of the judiciary? SENATOR LAUREL . . Mr. President, this very same argument was raised some years ago, I think it was 1938, because I happened to be in the supreme bench at the time, when the legialalure enacted Act 4007 providing for the reorganization of the ji.idiciary, and I think that was the second time the legislature reorganized the judiciary after Act 136 of the Philippine Commission which had been in force up to the time of the enactment of Act 4007. And then thereafter, that was the question involved in that case, the Commonwealth enacted Act 145 reorganizing again the judiciary particularly with reference to the district and one of the cases raised in that connection was the case of Sixto de la Costa who was appointed in lieu of Judge Francisco Zandueta as a result of that reorganization because whereas, Mr. President, the fourth district then occupied by Judge Zandueta was the U1·anch corresponding to the district of Manila, when it was reorganized another province was added which was Palawan which became a separate and distinct district and De la Costa was appointed there. There was a quo warranto proceedings on the ground that it impaired the tenure of office and the same argument was made. If you destroy one branch of one court on the theory that it is a legislative court then you ean destroy all legislative courts, then you have nothing left except the Supreme Court. I i·emember, Mr. President, that that same argument was bro\lght up and yet -;here were many things tliat arc inconceivable that we can imagir.e. We can imagine the suppression of the court of appeals, the suppression of the court of first instance, the suppression of the municipal courts and all court~ and there will be no courts at all except the Supreme Court. But you must give some leeway, some allowance to the sense of fairness. The < 1ucstion is one of legal powers. Hence, the legislature has the power to i·eorganize the judiciary, and if it finds it necessary, lo suppress the Court of Appeals. It could be suppressed. We did it at one time to improve the administi·ation of . justice, and we permitted transfer of the appeals directly from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, and there was a time when there was no Court of Appeals at all. Considering our duty to gin our people a system of administration of justice that will give them faith and confidence and hope, if we find it necessary to abolish the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges, could we or could we not? If we could, whether we have the legal power and whether we are justified in taking that action. Why not? As a patriotic Filipino you will share the glory of this body in having done something in exe1·cising the legal power, which you are proud and happy to exercise with the other honorable members of this bodf. SENATOR PERALTA. I remember very well the case of Zandueta versus De la Costa wherein the geritleman from Batangas was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he gave THE LA WYEUS JOURNAL August 31, HI04 a concurring opinion on the result. I remember also that his decision in that case, evading the issue as to whether the Congress or National Assembly then may abolish what the gentleman from Batangas calls legislative court. And I do remember one of the constitutional authorities on the law and on the subject whom 1 revere, my esteemed professor, Dean Since in the College of Law, stating that in his opinion, in order to protect the tenure of office of judges, it is of doubtful constitutionality if the National Assembly or the Congress may abolish such inferior courts because of that constit utional provision uncle!" section 9 of Article VIII of our Constitution guaranteeing the tenure of office of members or the judiciary. I remember also that t.he gentleman from Batangas, then Justice, in his concurring opinion, made the distinction as to when the abolition of a certain court limiting the tenure ".lf office, and when the abolition of courts was a matter of general policy. SEN ATOR LAUREL. Right. SENATOR PERALTA. No~v, in this case do I understand that it is the intention of the gentleman from Batangas that the abolition of courts is a matter of general public policy? SENATOR LAUREL. Yes, in a way. Exactly, tl~ere is nothing, as I said in the beginning. We arc not motivated or prompted by any feeling that is personal, or we are not desirous to promote hatred or animosity through the passage of this law. We simply feel that these judges-at-large and cadastral judges should be suppressed, and all the judges should become judges of the Court of First Instance. SENATOR PERALTA. Here, Mr. President, 1 have listened very carefully and very attentively to the distinguished gentleman from Batangas, and he gave two reasons, to my recollection, as to why he deemed it necessary to abolish the cadastral judges and the judges-at-large. SENATOR PERALTA. Yes. In other words, I plead with the gentleman from Batangas that in addition to those two reasons that he gave, we can amend the law without necessarily abolishing the positions of judges*at-large and cadastral judges, Can we not do so? SENATOR LAUHEL. By keeping the positions you can ex· tend the Constitution to them, of course. but that does not rationalize and harmonize in establishing a uniform system. And then another thing, Mr. Senator, for the purpose of the record. I did not make any reference to any undesirable or any crook or any* thing. I was simply referring in my answer to the gentleman from Hizal that in a case whel'e a judge of the Court of First Jnstance is no good, probably it would be unreasonable to reappoint him. That is a matter that lies in the discretion of the President. But I am not launching any attack against any judge or accusation against anybody. So far as I am concerned. and the members or the Committee and the members of the Senate. including the Senator, that if we approve this bill, we are not prnm11teJ by any feeling of hatred or animosity against any of these judges who will probably be affected. SENATOR PERALTA. I would like, of course, to believe that in all sincerity. The point that I am driving at is, that the gentleman from Batangas do.es not believe in amending the present Judiciary Act, in order to carry out the first two reasons that he gave, that we do not necessarily have to abolish the position of judges-at-large and cadastral judges. SENATOR LAUREL. That is true, Mr. Senator. In that bill which we passed last year and which was vetoed by President Quirino, we included thP. transfer of judges·at-large and cadastral judges, but that would not make our judiciary system uniform because we have to make the classifications of judges of Court of First Instance and the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges which, I think, is not scientific nor advisable. SENATOR LAUREL. The only two reasons that I am able SENATOR PERALTA. Mr. President, I would like to rest:rve to remember. my turn to speak against the bill. SENATOR PERALTA. I shall enumerate them in order that the gentleman from Batangas may correct me, if I am mistaken. The gentleman from Batangas believes that there should only be one classification of courts and judges of First Instance. With that I have no quarrel. The gentleman from Batangas is more experienced than .I and he is in a position to judge what kind of courts we should have in this country. SENATOR LAUREL. Thank you. But it does not mean that I am more brilliant than the gentleman. SENATOR PERALTA. Now, the second reason that he gave is that there should prevail a certain type of judges to try certain cases, and for political · reasons. With that again 1 am in utmost sympathy. But there is a third reason and it is in response to the question of the gentleman from Rizal wherein he stated that one reason for the abolition of the judges-at-large and cadastral Judge is because of t.he presence of certain undesirable elements, and he stated specifically one cadaitral judge who, by popular acclamat ion, may be dubbed as rather an inefficient judge, and it is for that reason that it is better to abolish all judges·at*large and ca. dastral .judges in order that that man may not be reappointed. Now, analyzing the first two, does not the gentleman agree that the first two reasons may be subserved without necessarily abolish· ing the ~osition sof judges-at-large and cadastt-al judges? In other words, can we not put up an amendment in the judicie.ry law that hereafter, judges-at-large and cadastral judges may not be assigned to try special cases outside of their official jurisdiction? May we not do that? SENATOR LAUREL. Yes, but you don't make them district judges. In other words, you will have to classify them as eadastral judges or judges-at-large. THE PRESIDENT. Let the record show. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, unless there are questions or remarks I do not want to delay the opportunity of anyor.e who wants to make use of the floor. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, will the gentleman yield? THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yield, if he 110 desires. SENATOR LAUREL. With plcnrmre. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. I would like to make particular re· ference now to that provision of the Constitution in Article VIII, Section 9, referred to just a moment ago by the Gentleman from Tarlac which has reference to the security of tenure of office. Section 9 of Article VIII reads as follows: "The members of the Supre~e Court and al! judge" s 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." Now, it seems from the questions of the gentleman from Tarlac that he has serious doubts as to whether or not this provision of the Constitution is violated if the positions of judges-at.large and cadastral judges are abolished because by so doing the present judges.at-large and cadastral judges are custed from office. What is your opinion on this matter, gentleman from Batangas? SENATOR LAUREL_v4'iy humlile opinion, Mr. President, is that the congress or the legislative department may exercise its legislative powers and one of these legislative powers which is ne* cessarily implied, which is inherent, is the control over public offices. We can create and abolish public offices, increase their compensation, make the function of different offices into one or August 81, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 385 into various other offices. In other words, do anything and everything that Congress, the legislative department, wants to do with reference to public offices, except one limitation and condition, except as to constitutional offices. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Now, does Your Honor agree with the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Manalang versus Quitoriano, et. al., recently decided about two weeks ago in Baguio, wherein the Supreme Court said, and I am quoting now from a clipping appearing in a Manila press: "Removal implies the office exists after the ouster. Such is not the case of herein petitioner, for Republic Act No, 761 expressly abolished the Placement Bureau and by implication the office of the director thereof which obviously cannot exist without said bureau. By abolition of the latter and of the said office, the right thereto of this incumbent petitioner herein was necessarily extinguished the1·eby." There are other considerations, but the gist is that according to the Supreme Court, in this case there can be no illegal ouster if the office no longer exists and there can only be illegal removal or violation of security of tenure where the office continues to exist after the alleged ouster. And this particular decision or' the Supreme Court may be applicable in the case of judges-at-large and the cadastral judges if we abolish their positions expl'essly and they find themselves out of office. SENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, I have no doubt that that decision is correct, and just the other way or what they call : "sensu contrari.'' the reverse. The Supreme Court I think is also correct in the case of Brillo ' 'ersus Enaje because almost the same question with a different twist in the law is involved, because Tacloban was converted into a city, they made it into a city, and there was a justice of the peace of the municipality of Tacloban . Now, when they converted it into a city, they appointed a new justice of the peace although there was already a justice of the peace there since 1937, Enage, but they changed him and appointed another. The Supreme Court · said, "No, you cannot do that; there was no more office." Well, no more, the office has been abolished. In other words, if there has been an express legislation saying that there will be no more municipal judge but instead somebody else or the auxiliary judge is hereby created or some other arrangement was made, it would have been a different story, but the position not having been abolished because it was the stune position of judge except that you changed the name, perhaps the same territory of Tacloban except that instead of calling it a municipality, you call it a city, it is the same judge, the same judge should continue as a municipal judge, and that was, I understand, the l'uling of the Supreme Court. In other words, in that case there was abolition. No question. In this case there was no abolition and therefore no other fellow should leave. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. May I ask Your Honnr now to profound Section 7, Article VIII, which has reference to appointment cf judges of inferior courts to particular districts, which judges would be transferred to another district without the consent of the Supreme Court? Your Honor was one of the leading members of the Convention and I understand had a leading vital role in drafting the provision of the Constitution relative to J udiciary. At the time that that provision was approved by the Convention, Your Honor was then aware of a vicious practice being observed at the time, of transferring one judge from one district to another, creating what was then vulgarly called ''rigodon de jueces" and which provoked the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Borromeo versus Mariano. SENATOR LAUREL. There are many instances, but I do not want to make reference to them. Historically the old "El Renacimiento" case which was tried by Judge Bentley, they wanted to suppress the name and kill the paper because the "El Renacimien· to" was a nationalistic paper always crying for independence and attacking Worcester in that famous article written by our "paisano' from Batangas, "Aves de Rapiiia," and there was a suit and they wanted a judge to insure the destruction of the paper "El Renacimiento," and they got it. They appointed a judge, not from Manila, through some arrangement with the Secretary of Justice, they secured an American judge and they succeeded in destroying it. And that was not the only instance. Recently, you know, even our esteemed colleague here in the Senate, was assigned a judge. Well, I do not want to make l'f!ference. I want, if it were possiblE, for the wound to heal because what this country needs is integration, what this country needs is solidification in common interests and common desires, to sene not so much the interests of our party, but the common interests of our people, but you know, the Gentleman knows, and every lawyer knows what hap11ened in the past, which we do not want to repeat, and precisely that is why we arc t rying to correct that. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. I agree entirely with the gentleman from Batangas that we should not i·eopen old wounds, but at the same time, if we consider legislation of this nature, it would be wise to be guided by the lessons of history. SENATOR LAUREL. I have a list of those cases. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. I wanted only to get from the Gentleman from Batangas what were the reasons why this provision was inserted in the Constitution at the time, and I got my answer. Now, does not Your Honor, considering all thefle reasons and motives behind the insertion by the constitutional convention of that provision in the Constitution, believe that the creation subsequently of the positions of judges-at-large and cadastral judges, who coulr.I be transfP.rred from one district to another at the pleasure of the Chief Executive without the consent of the Supr£me Conrt, was u violation of the spirit at least of the r-rovision vf our Constitution and which later on would deprive u3 cf the proper administ-ration of justice which was envisaged at that time? v--$ ENATOR LAUREL. Mr. President, S1:ndu1· Primidas is correct. And it is, I dare say, one of tl1e com;::es that ~ave rise to •he almost complete destruction of the faii:h and confidence of the 11eople in the administration o! justice in this country. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. And if w~ conect now that violation, at least in spirit, of the provision of cur Constitution lly abolishing the positions of these judges who can be transferred like pawns on a chessboard at the mercy of the Chief Executivie in order to take cognizance of cases to prosecute 1 101itieal enemies, r.ow that we are in power, we do not want to exercise that power 1.>ecause we want to restore the permanency of judges so that they may no longe1· be removed from their districts, does that ''iolate the spirit of the Constitution or does that further the spirit of the Constitu. tion? SENATOR LAUREL. That does not \•iolate the Constitution. It is in consonance and in harmony with the spirit o! the Constitution, that gives it life. New is the opportunity. Senator Primicias is correct. And in taking advantage of that opportunity, we a1·e inviting all the membera of all the political parties to join us in this great endeavor and, perchance, in the near future share in the great glory of this great undertaking which we have began this noon. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. And now, Mr. President, the Na· cionalista Party is in power together with the help of the Democratic Party. These judge,s..at-large and cadastral judges are now within our power, through the Secretary of Justice, to transfer from one district to another. It is a tremendous weapon for political purpose, and yet the gentleman from Batangas is championing this bill giving up this power in order to make real the independence of the judiciary in the administration of justice. I think the gentleman from Batangas deserves all the honor and the praise that our people could bestow upon him for his statements here. SEN ATOR LAUREL. I am profoundly grateful, Mr. Pres3SG THE LA WYERS JOURNAL August 31, l~:i4 ident, for those laudatory remarks made by the distinguished gentleman from Pangasinan, Senator Primicias. DISCURSO EN CONTRA, DEL SEN. PERALTA SENATOR PERALTA. Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT. Gentleman from Tarlac. SENATOR PERALTA. J\.lr. President, I was going to vote for the original bill because that bill did not in any sense threaten the independence of the members of the judiciary. However, J\.fr. President, when the Committee on Judiciary of this chamber changed its mind after a p('riod of about ten days, finally decided that they would abolish the posirions of judges-at-large and cadastral judges, I felt it my duty to stand up, humble as my voice may be, in order to restate my position on what I believe is the meaning of the Constitution on the independence of the judiciary. It is denied, and yet hoveririg in the background is the real reason for this reorganization, namely, the charge that some of these judges-at.large and some of these cadastral judges are incompetent to hold their office, and the only way of getting rid of them is by abolishing all the positions, reappointing the good · ones and leaving out the bad ones. But, Mr. President, our Constitution and our laws at present state a procedure of how we can get rid of the bad ones, because it is not fair, Mr. President, by gossip \lnd by rumor to convict a judge of being a bad judge. That judge, if he is accused of being a bad judge, has every right like any other person accused of a crime to meet his accusers face to face, crossexamine them and before a competent court or tribunal, which Is the Supreme Court, dare the accusers to prove the charge that he is a bad judge. It is so easy, Mr. President, to smear the character of a man by gossip and by rumor, making cowardly accusa· tions in private that a man is a bad judge, that he does not know the law, or that he accepts bribes. But, Mr. President, accusation by gossip and by rumor, conviction by gossip and by rumo'r, i!' not the kind of justice that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. And if in order to get rid of bad judges, we have to abolish all the positions of judges-at-large and judges of cadastral courts, where shall we e1~d ? SoC1ner or later, somebody will prop~se: "Let us abolish all the positions of district judges of first instance, because there are two or three bad judges there and we cannot get: rid of them except by abolishing all these positions of judges of first instance, reorganizing the judiciary under the guise of public policy; then, let us reappoint the good ones and leave out the bad ones." That is the theory. But, Mr. President, in the light of practical politics - and the trouble with this country is that ther.: is too much politics ·-, unless you are a good Nacionalista, Mr. President, you probably will not be reappointed as judge of first instar.ce or unless you know how to kiss the hand of the powers that be. I am told t:lmt this judiciary bill ~bolishing the positions of judges at large t.nd cadastral judges is for public policy. Public policy? I was told two good reasons why there should not be any more judges-at.large and cadastral judges. But those good reasons, Mr. President, can be enforced by a little amendment to the judiciary act like what we did last year, and it would not result in the abolition of positions of judges-at-large and cadastral judges. Why am I so worried about thirty-three men? It is not thirty-three men that I am worried about. It is the principle, Mr. President, that if a certain judge antagonizes a powerful man in this government, he runs the risk of having his position abolished under the guise of the socalled, alleged, public policy; when in truth and in fact the real i·eason is t:hat this judge has been convicted of nothing more than by mere gossip or rumor of incompetence, or for the mon:: congent reason that he antagonized a powerful official. Whether founded or unfounded, nobody will ever know, unless that judge meets his uccufJers face to face before his peers in the land. /Now, Mr. President, what is the reason why Section 9 of Article VIII of our Constitution was placed? Is it a dead letter? That article states: "The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior, etc. et<:." Notice, Mr. President, that in this section judges of inferior cou1·ts are placed in the same footing and side by side wit:h members of the Supreme Court and mentioned in the same breath; and both members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts have the same rights under this same article and the same section is the source of their constitutional rights. Mr. President, if we try to pass ' a law now stating that the term of the justices of the peace shall be limited to ten years, Mr. President, that law is cleuly void and unconstitutional. Why? Because, Mr. President, this article states that all judges of inferior courts shall hold office during i:,rood behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. In other words, Mr. President, we cannot limit the tenure of their office because what is prohibited by express direction cannot be done by indirect means. ~s argued, l\fr. President, that we can abolish the office; that it is inherent in Congress to create and abolish all kinds of offices except constitutional offices. But, Mr. President, that is subject to one express limitation, that such abolition of offices shall not coni'ravene any provision of the Constitution of the Philippines. And I maintain, Mr. President, when we abolish the position of judge of any inferior court for the expr<!SS purpose of limiting the tenure of judges, then, Mr. Pr<!sident, we run counter to Section 9 of the Constitution which guamntees i'he tenure of office of the judiciary whether they belong to ~he Supreme Court or whether they belong to inferior courts. Now, Mr. President, certain cases have been alluded to here: The cases of Zandueta vs. De la Cosca, the cases of Brillo vs. Enage, and this last case which involves former Director Manalang. I submit, Mr. President, that in the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa only Justice Laurel in his concurring opinion upheld the theory that we may abolish inferior courts. The rest of the Supreme Court evaded i'hat issue and merely refused to issue quo warranto simply because Judge Zandueta was held in estoppel. In other word.;, inasmuch as Judge Zandueta had assumed another office incompatible with his office as Judge of Court of First Instance, Judge Zandueta could no longer question the constitutionality of the law under which he held his office. In the case of Brillo vs. Enage cited here, J\.Ir. PresidenC, said decision was penned by Justice Ra· mon Diokno of revered memory but who, probably by coincidence, always agreed with the top·brains of the Nacionalista Party in political cases. And in his ratio decidendi Justice Diokno cited the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa using that case as authority and doctrine t'hat Congress may abolish inferior courts. The case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa never sustained such doctrine. Only one Justice of the Supreme Court upheld that doctrine that Congress may abolish inferior courts. The case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa in fact made no such ruling. And I submit that in spit'e of all the learned experience of Justice Diokno he was wrong in citing such a precedent because in the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa the Supreme Court did not uphold that doctrine that the Congress may abolish i'he inferior courts. It should not be stated here, Mr. President, that Congress has the authority to abolish inferior courts because that is not the doctrine in this country. It is only a statement of one learned justice and such st'atements have been challenged by equally distinguished constitutional lawyers and there is no decision of the Supreme Court that I have been able to discover expressly stating that the Congress may abolish inferior courts. Now, I am afraid, Mr. PresidenV, that i~ we pass this bill, its constitutionality will be challenged in the Supreme Court. It will have to be because this is a doctrine, Mr. President, which underlies the whole theory of democracy that the Judici.ary shall be free and independent. One may not limit their t'enu1·e of office except for those reasons enumerated in the Constitution which are rroo:t beAu1,rust 81, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 387 havior, incapacity to continue in office or until they reach the age of 70. Those are the only three reasons why a judge, whether a member of the Supreme CouIT or of an inferior court, may be relllOVf!d from office, and if those are the only three reasons, Mr. President, stated by our Constitution, I plead that inclusio unfos est e:rcfosio alteriits. What makes this bill very mischievous is not because there will be 33 men out of jobs. We have thrown ou~ men from work but such did not involve doctrines and theories which underlie the very substance of democracy. When we challenge the independence of the judiciary, we challenge democracy's very foundation. It is hinted here, l\Ir. President, that there are six doubtful men who arc at presene judges-at-large and who may not be reappointed. Mr. President, it is better to bear with such six doubtful men than to destroy the very essence of the independence of the judiciary because, Mr. President, as every man knows in this country we take politics ilio much at heart. What is to prevent the insinuation - many of us here are lawyers - that if some powerful members of Congress are disappointed in some very big cases, especially when they refer to very big cases, what is to prevent the insinuation from circulating among the people that the l'eal reason why a judicial office has been abolished is because that powerful member had been disappointed in losing the case. And human as we are, Mr. President, sometimes when a lawyer loses an important case, he begins circulating around, "Maybe, because that judge was fixed." That is human. I have heard those kinds of stories l'!irculat<!d by a disappointed lawyer who loses an important case, and who starts <'!irculating t'he rumor that "that judge must have been fixed - must have been bribed." Or, also, he is grossly ignorant of the law, Repeat that often enough and people will start to believe. But if those are t.rue, Mr. President, why do not these people who accuse these judges, go t'o the Supreme Court and make their s.ccusations in public so that these judges may defend themselves, instead of having their character assassinated in public markets and other places? That is why, Mr. President, it is not for these thirtythree men i'hat I plead today - I do not know most of these men - probably I know only one or two judges-at-large - at most three. I do not know the rest of these men, I do not probably know their names and their recOrds, but I do know, Mr. President, that once we start threai'ening members of inferior courts, Mr. President, there is hardly any limit to what we may threaten later on. Suppose, for example, Mr. President, that some powerful members were losing a case before the Court of Appeals? Very soon, Mr. President, there will be rumors circulating thaC those members of the Court of Appeals are grossly ignorant, or, they must have been fixed. This kind of charader assassination will sooner or later circulate and pretty soon somebody in the halls of Congress will say, "Let us abolish the Court of Appeals on the ground of public policy." Le~ us create another court, which we shall call a court of appellate jurisdiction. Instead of putting there eleven men, let us put twenty,one in order that t'here will be more Nacionalistas employed for judicial jobs. Now, Mr, President, I do not mind even a Nacionalista, pl'Ovided that he is really competent, and I say there are many competent Nacionalistas who can be justices of the Supreme Court and justices of the Court of Appeals, judges in the Court of First Instance, and justices of the peace courts. There are many, competent Nacionalista Party members who would honor me even if I only shake their hands. But:, Mr. President, that is not the proper way of giving them jobs - To abolish positions of men who have do!lf' nothing wrong in order that new positions will be created and given to these worthy members of the majority party. That is not the correct procedure and if we follow such a procedure, Mr. President, sooner or later we will no longer be a democracy, We will follow the doctrines of Communise Russia, Mr. President, where only party members may hold important offices. Mr. President, there is one more argument which I would like to leave in the minds of my colleagUes in this chamber. I merely would like to quote Justice Laurel himself when he made a con. current opinion in the case of Zandueta vs. De la Costa, which appears on p. 626, Vol. 66, Phil. Reports, 1938. I quote: "I am not insensible to the argumen~ that the National Assembly may abuse its power and move deliberately to defeat the constitutional provision guaranteeing security of tenure to all judges, But, is this the case? One need not share the view of St'ory, Miller and Tucke.r on the one hand, or the opinion of Cooley, Watson and Baldwin on the other, to realize that the application of a legal or constitutional principle is necessarily factual and circumstantial a nd t hat fixity of principle is the rigidity of the dead and the unprogressive. I do say, and emphatically, however, that cases may arise where the violation of the constitutional provision regarding security of judicial tenure is palpable and plain, and that legislative power of reorganization may be sought to cloak an unconst'itu. tional and evil purpose. When a case of that kind arises, it will be the time to make the hammer fall and heavily." Now, Mr. President, I use those very same words of Justice Laurel, "Let the hammer fa\J and heavily" because, Mr. President, under the guise of reorganization, security of judicial t'enure is violated and such security violated in plain and palpable terms. I thank you, Mr. President. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, I ask for a suspen· sion of the consideration of this bill until this afternoon. EL PRESIDENTE, Hay alguna objeci6n a la moci6n? tSilencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Queda aprobada. CONSIDERACION DEL $. NO. 170 (ContinuaciOn) SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, I now ask that we resume consideration of Senate Bill No. 170, the Judiciary Act. THE ACTING PRESIDENT. Continuation of the consideration of Senate Bill No. 170 is in order. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Mr. President, the distinguished Minority Floor Leader woulld like to be heard on tliis measure, and I ask that he be i·ecognized. EL PRESIDENTE lNTERlNO. Caballero por Abra. MANIFEST ACIONES DEL SEN. PAREDES SENATOR PAREDES. Mr. Pr~sident, gentlemen of the Senate : Far be it from my intention to engage in a debate on this very important bill. I have such a high respect for the < .pinion of our distinguished coUeagUe, Senator Laurel, that I will 11ay without hesitation that whatever opinion I have on legal mattni! and whatever I say here this afternoon should not be construed ur op. posing his views but only as a compliance with the duty that I bt>lieve I owe to the Senate - to state some reasons which in my opinion might endanger the bill if ever ih constitutionality i1 brought before the court. · There cannot be any quarrel, Mr. President, on ihe proposition that Congress has the absolute right to reorganizf- not only the executive departments, but all other dt::partments r:f the g1Jvern~ mcnt. Neither can there be any question that the Congress may change the jurisdiction of the courts, enlarge or rt>duce its territorial jurisdiction or its jurisdiction as to the cas<>s that may be tried by them, It can also be granted that a reorganization that affects the tenure of office of the present incumbents of the judiciary may be constitutional or unconstitutional according to the motive. behind the reorganization. Senator Laurel, as a member of the Supreme Court, has laid tho rule that should be followed, and I believe it is only proper to bring his ruling before the attention of ·this Senate. In the celebrnted case of Zandueta cited here this morning, it W9.! held by Justice Laurel that a reorganization that deprive a judge of his 388 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL August 31, 1954 c•ffice is not necessarily unconstitutional. But an!' reorgauizrition may become unconstitutional if the circumstances :ire such as to show that the intention of the reorganization is to put olJt a member of the judiciary by legislation, I will not ~harge anybody with any hiddc:n intention or improper motives in this bill, but it the question is ever presented to the Supreme Court by anl judgt> who may be ~ffected by tht: i;rovisions of this bi!; whicl• ] sup. pose will be approved this afternoon, I feel, Mr. President, that if the circumstances - preceding, coetaneous and subsequent to the approval of the bill - are presented to the Supreme Court, the constitutione.Jity of the bill will be seriously endangered. If the motives of the Congress in reorganizing are simply public policy, public welfare, public service, and the prestige or the protection of the judiciary and the members thereof, there can he little question about the constitutionality of the bill, but otherwise, the bill ia un. constitutional. Let us now, Mr. President, examine the circumstances attend. ing this reorganization, and then ask ourselves whether or nut our protestations of good motives a.re likely to be given credence ,by the courts. For the last seven years, the administration was controllrd by the Libernl Party. The Nacionalista Party being then in thP minority, had always been complaining against the u.cts of the Liberal Party administration. Right or wrong, there were alleged irregularities committed and which were the subject of uttacks and complaints on the part of the members or the minr,rity party, then the Nacionalista Party. The J udiciary was not free fr<.Jm these attacks and from these charges or inegularities. The Judiciary was also accused of having become a. tool of the Chief Executiw in the dispensation or justice. Comments were madt:, attaf:ks were freely hurled during the campaigns ag:i.inst members of the Judiciary or the way in which the members of the Jurlidary f.ierformed their duties. Main subject <'f attacks was the frequency with which the Secretary of Justice assigned judges to try specific cases and attributing to this action the ulterior motive ot eecurmg the eouvictir.n or the acquittal of t.he accused in criminal cases. Sinre the elections and after the new admi11istration wa'! instal11od into office, what did we notice in the matter of changing employees and reorganizing' In the Executive Department, not only have 'the high officials had to present their resignation out of propri1:ty, but even those who weie holding technical positions and who ordinarily would not be affected by changes in the leadership of the govern. ment, had to resign, and I say ''had to" because they were asked to resign, or else So they did resign one by one. They quit their positions, because they were asked lo. And that was not enough. In the province~ changes were made, I will not now say that legislative violations were made, changes were made in the Executive Department, governors, mayors, councilors, board members were changed from Liberals to Na. cionalista. There seems to he a craze of chilnging personnel, ousting all the Liberal~, all those who belong to the Liberal party, and putting in their places members of the Nacionalista Party. VHy natural, that was to be expected. For so many rears has the N<.icionalista Party been deprived of the opportunitunity to control the government, and this being the first opportunity of the Nacionalistas, it is only naural that they should wish to place their own men in order to be able to carry out their promises. They did not have confiden•~e in the members of the Lib. eral Party. It was their right and privilege and dut)- to them. selves, I should say, to bring new men to carry out their policies. Mr. President, this was done, not only in the executive and E-lso the elective positions. In the Department of Foreign Affairs, soon after the assumption to offir.e, the Secretary announced pub. licly and openly that all the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs should resign notwithstanding the fact that there is a law protecting them, the tenure of their office being assured on good behavior. Then investigations against membP.rs of the Fo... reign Scrvicr started, all with the end in view of removing incumbent Liberals. The same wa.s done in the bureaus. Chiefs of Bureaus were asked to resign. Some o1 thf'.rr did othP.rs did nr,t, but finally had to give up their place in favor o! new ones, all belonging to the Nacionalista Party. This ;:eries of similar act.i follo.,. .. ing the same standard will help discnver the intention of this judiciary reorgani1.a.tion bill. As to the Judiciary, there is no way of laying off t.hc judge.9 The judges cannot be asked simply to resign becauiie the Constitution protects thrm. TherP. is a need to follow a different course it we want to change those who, during the former regime or ad. ministration, were suspected to bdng a tool of the Executive. A reorganizatio11 to get rid of them would be a most co1wenient toi:rs"' SENATOR PRIMICIAS : Mr. President, will the GPn•Jeman yield? THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may yield, if he Sl' Cesires. SENATOR PAREDES. With pleasure. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. I regret to have to interrupt d.e distinguished Minority Floor Leader, but I wanted to ask him a few questions on the Department uf Foreign Affairs. SENATOR PAREDES. Yes, si1·. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. upon his stattn1ent "!.hat ni:my were asked to resign and those who did not resign were inve:1tiq-atP.c1. SENATOR PAREDES. I apply that to the cfocr branches r:of the Executive. In the Depa1·tment of Foreign Affairs, I say thnt there was a public statement that the members of thf: foreifPl ser\'iee should resign. SENATOH PRIMICIAS. N11, sir; I am not r-oferring now to public statements, but W actual acts allegedly committed hy thP Department of Foreigr. Affairs. Is it not a fact, Gentleman from Abra, thnt only those occupying mini!Oteriu.l positions voluntarily resigned, and no one was asked to resign in the Department of Foreign Affairs. SENATORS PAREDES. I uuderstand that has been the case, tut I also know, hecause I have !"ead in the newspapers, thnt there havt! been public s:l<!.tcmcnts made by the Secretary of Foreign Ai. foirs saying that in his opinion any mE:mber of the Foreign Ser. vice shcuM. resign because, acco1 ding to him, they must hz.ve the , ubsolute confidence of the Chief of the Department. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. I do not know if he actually made that statement or not. I have no means to verify if he actually made that statement, but we must be concerned not with alleged state. ments which might more or less be true, but with actual acts committed. Now, is it not true, •\ctually until now, that there are ministers who have actually resigned, tencle~·ed their resignations, but their resign:i.tions are not yet accepted and they are continuing in the foreign service? SENATOR PAREDES. I think you are right, Your Honor. SENATOR PHIMICIAS. Now, us regards some foreign affairs officers in the consular Rcrvice, I understand that there are two consular offie(:rs who are being investigated in the whole consular corps. Is it not true that tl1esfl consular officers a.rl) beingo invcstigated for electioneering act.ivities, because th<"Y actually aban· doned their posts and cume to th<' Philippines and r:lectione<'rPd? SENATOR PAREDES ." I do not know the reason for their being investigate,!. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Dut then: is no member of the consular corps who did not come to the Philippines to campaign who is being investigated. SENATOH PAREDES. 1 do not know about that. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Well, I was interested in e.ski!ig these questions because Your Honor ha.:> made a sweeping statement that t.fficers in the foreign service were either asked 00 resign and that if they did not resign they were actually iuvestigated. I want to set th2 record straight that the sweeping statement is not in sel'ord:>.ncc with facts. SENATOR PAREDES. If I am 'not mistaken, what I said and what I am going to say is in the executive departAugust 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 389 rncnt, ami then I singled out the foreign service - that even in the fcreign service, tl1c secretary annumced that · <!veryonc thould 1 ·1::.c;:gn. SENATOR l'IRMICIAS. Now, aetua.lly, the members of the cr.msular corps did not resign. They were not asked to re!!lgn. SEKATOR PAREDES. Maybe not. SENATO!~ PRIMICIAS. Now, regarding the judiciary, Your Honor has just made a statement that after reorganizing the exl cutive department, and as Your Honor has said, the Nacionalista Party which had made a commitment to the people had the right to do so. So, they have attt!mpted to reorganize the foreign af. fairs department in spite of the law t.hat :!.Ssures the security of tenure and which, as I have just stated, is not conect as a sweeping statement. Your Honor now refers to the judiciary, and t.hat the Nacionalista Party decided on reorganizing the judiciary in order to control again the judiciary. SENATOR PAREDES. Pardon me, I am not chargii~e any. body with bad intentions. I am Simply presenting the circumstanr.cs in order later to conclude with a question. Now, under the circumstances, would the Supreme Court, in case these facts :in, pre. sented to it, belie\'C what we said here about a clear conscience and pure motives. or will the Supreme Court take a different view? If they take a different view, the bill will be considered unc1..nstitu· tional. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Now, I wculd like to ask a quesiwn to the distinguished minority f\l)()r ieader. I am sure his statements en the floor, in cn.se this question is elevated to the Sunreme Court, would be cited in the Suprf'me Court, and 1 would Jil:e to have him on the record. As a mat.ter of constitutional powt-r, legnl power, granted by thC' Constitution, is Your Hon;.ir of the belief that Congress hns the power to ,·corg·anize inferior courts, not the Supreme Court, but inferior courts, abolish position:> in the inferior cc.urts, or create new courts? SENATOH PAREDES. l have ~tarted my brief statement recognizing these principles and these rights, and 1 e\·en went to the extent of saying' th2.t we can Jegb:late out in some respect But if our legislation goes to such an extent that it may be construed as being motivated by a desire to get rid of judges rather than the good of the service, then our action goes beyond the limit. That is what I was saying. I am trying now to show the ci1·cum"~tance.'> preceding and attending the t>resentation of this bill so as to conclude with lhc question that I would like to propound. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Your Honor is then of the opinion that the answer to the question depends upon the motive. If th~ motive i!< praiseworthy, the action would be perfectly legal. SENATOR PAREDES. Yes. SENATOR PRIMICIAS . But if the motive is purely ),c.litical, there is serious doubt as to its validity. SENATOR PAREDES. Exactly. That is why I agree with you. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. But as a matter of academic 'JUestion, ii respective of the motives, and I suppose this matter must be decided on legal or constitutional grounds SENATOR PAREDES. And the surrounding circumstances. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Suppose we consider the matter tiure. ly from the academic point of view. SENATOR PAREDES. Then there is no qur.stlon, from the academic point .Jf view, that this bill is constituiional. But as Justice Laurel said in his decisions in interpreting the Constitu. tion, we should apply the Constitution with the particular circumstances of a given ease. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Your Honor then is of the belief that in view of the series of circumstances that Your Honor has just. mentioned, the Supreme Court might doubt the motivi;s behind the approval of this bill if converted into law? SENATOR PAREDES. Not those circumstances only, but other circumstances that I was about to mention, and I will say, with all these circumstances, even in a. criminal case, there is sufficient ground to conclude guilt. SENATOR PRIMICIAS. Does Your Honor aho believe that in judging these motives one should take into account the fact that because of the creation of the positions of Judges at large 'lnd cadastral judges, who might be transferred and who were ;i.ctually tr:rnsferred from one district to rmot.her irrespective ot' the needs of tht.> service, a serious situation has arisen destroying the faith and confidence of the people in the adminif:tratfon of justice, which sit. uation must be remedif'd by the new p::-.1-ty which has assumed power in order to restore the faith and confidence of the p"'ople? SENATOn PAREDES. Y~s, I agree with you that thtti might be necesi:.ary. SENATOR PHIMICIAS. Thank you very much. SENATOR PAHEDES. Now, Mr. President, again J wish to clarify my position. I am not charging anybody with bad or ultnior motives. On the contrary, I believe that evel'y member of Congress ii: moved by the best oi intentions in voting for this bill. But I am simply presenti.ng coetaneous circumstances that will naturally be brought before. the Supl'eme Court if the case ii> ever presented there, and which coetaneous circumstances may outbalance the presumption that we are complying with !>Ur dutie3 faithfully. It may outbalance the presumption that our motives, as we 'say, are good. If I may resume now, in the judiciary, there is an dbsolute impossibility of asking any body to resign if he docs not want to, because he is protected by the Constitution. That will be presented to the Supreme Court. Now, as for other coetaneous circumstances. What wa.s done in the matter of the appropriation Jaw in order to facilitate legislating out some of the employees, civil service men? Lump sum appropriations were requested for certain offices, but which were not granted by the Senate because the Senate, I am proud to say, represented by the distinguished gentlemen of the majority and also joined by a few members of the mir.ority, saw fit to oppose that objectionable move, or at least saw fit to act in such a way as to avoid any possibility of suspicion. But other facto will also be brought up, Mr. President, which will add to the series of circumstances t.hat will be used by those who may question the law, to change the S"'11ate with ulterior motives. What are those facts, Mr. President? I wai; told right this aft:.nnC'on, when I was on the {Joor of the Lower House, that no less than the floor leader of the majority stoted that one of the pu:·poses c,f the bill is to get rid of the judges that a!'e no good. This is on record. With ~uch a confession, how can we say to the Supreme Court, in all sincerity, that our intentions are purely to serve the judiciary. The Secretary of Justice is even quoted as ha.vii;g said that five or six judges will be affected. Take those circumstances into consideration, Mr. President, and again the other side wil! say, "What was the purpose of the reorganization, the evident. purpose of the reorganization?" It has been said, ffrsf, to e<1ualize, give the same rank, jurisdiction and salary to all judges. That same rank can be accomplished now if we only rnise the salary of the lower judges. The cadastra.I judge will have the same jurisdic· tion as the district judge if he is assigned to try all kinds of cases. By administrative order, he can have the same rank, although not the same salary and t.he same na.me. The auxiliary judges now have the same privileges as a district judge except the salary. If that is the reaso)\ for the bill, why not simply taise the salary of these judges so that they may ha.ve the same rank as the nthers. S11cond al/t!ged motive: To avoid the possibility of these judges being used and assigned from one district to another as they had allegedly been used and assigned in the past, to fry special cases and to follow the wishes of the administration. I wish to pay a tribute of admiration to the gentlemen of the majority for having said that that is their purpose. I believed ihat is the pur11ose of the gentlemen who authored the bill and sponsored the bill, Senator Laurel. But, Mr. President, that same purpos~ can be accomplished by simply amending the law, by simply providing that the Secretary of Justice shall not do this hereafter without th" ccnsent uf the 390 THE LAWYERS .JOURNAL August 31, 1954 affected judge and the Supreme Court. That wouliJ have been a remedy. So, we cannot allege that a.s the reason for the amendment. Now, what is the other possible and alleged reason? To give all judges the same name. Mr. President, I believe this is too childish a reason for a wholesale reorganization of the judiciary. These being the circumstances, I would ask the gentfom€'n of the Senate to kindly consider whether our protestation of clean conscience and cleaL· motives are not outbalanced by the preceding ,.and coetanc.ous circumrtances, and whcthe1· or not if we a11 prove ( this bill we will ha,•e any chance of having it sustain<.!d hy the Supreme Court. There is one part of l11e bill that may be the source of injustice in its application. I refer to the proviso that all auxiliuy judges and all eadastral judges will vacate their offices upon approval of this bill. Now, that is an actual deprivation of these people's position. But this may create a sil\iation that may be cited as depal'ting from the avowed good intention of the law, There is a district judge, fo1· instance, in Rizal, and there is the district: of Manila where there are several cadastral judges. Suppose that this bill is approved, all judges, the second and third class, should ·vacate their positions and wait for a new appointment. In the case of l~1e district judge of Rizal, he will not ha,•e to be reappointed. So, he r{;)nains as a j1~clgc of Rizal. But the cadastr9.! judge who has to get new appointment in 01·der to continue in the judiciary, is appointed to Manila. Result: the one in Rizal who has been serving for years as district judge will not be brought to Manila because he remains in his disl'rict, while the cadastral judge in the district has the opportunity to come and in fact comes to Manila. SENATOR TA:RADA. Mr. President, will the gentleman yield on this pvint? THE ACTING PRESIDENT. The genl1eman may yield if he so desires. SENATOR PAREDES. Gladly. SENATOR TA:A'ADA. I regret that I cannot see the point of the distinguished gentleman from Abra because there is nothing in the bill, Mr. Senator, which would prevent the President fr~m promoting the judge. who is occupying a court in the disl'rict of the province of Rizal, to a court here in Manila. Thel'efore, the basis of the argument of the distinguished Senator will not be there. SENATOR PAREDES. Except for this consideration, that the questfon of appointment is so ticklish a matter that the ap1iointing power tries to avoid difficulties. By not removing anybody from his place, he has less headaches, Just let him stay where he is and get a new one. He will only ha,·e one problem. IC he 1·emoves him, there will be another headache to find his successor. So, the best thing is to t·etain him where he is. SENATOR TARADA. But there is no provision which prevents the PresidenC from exercising his appointing power. As the bill is drafted, there is nothing to prevent the President from promoting district judges who may be in the district of Pangasinan 01· Rizal. The chances are that he may lose his place if the appointment is not: confirmed here, but the result is that on account of the reorganization law he would have to be placed in jeopardy of losing his place. SENADOR PAREDES. But in the case of the judge-at-large who, according to you, may be promoted to the court here in Manila, he may also lose his job. It is not a question of losing his job that I am presenting now here, bu~ whether these judges in the province, because of the operation of this bill, are deprh·ed of the opportunity to be promoted to better courts. SENATOR TARADA. Thank you. SENATOR PAREDES. As I said to the gentleman from Quezon, the dist.'rict judges take the risk or are placed in danger of losing their positions, while the judges-at-large and the cadastral judges lose definitely their positions unless they are reappointed and their reappointment confirmed. And that is the possible result. With t'his statement, Mr. President, without any intention to oppose the bill as you gentlemen believe, but simply to point out that the circumstance I have mentioned may be more than sufficient to counterbalance or outbalance the protestatfons of our clean conscience and clear motives, I wish to conclude. The statements made by the Floor Leader of the majority in the lower house are too definite for any doubt. You know your moti\•es. You will answer for t'he bill. You are the overwhelming majority. You will vote for this bill, of course, notwithstanding eur (t?l\rs that the same will not serve a good purpose. SENATOR DELGADO. Mr. President, will the gentlf'mnn yield? THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yiled if he wisltes. SENATOR PAREDES . Gladly. SENATOR DELGADO. I understood from the gentleme!1 that he is assuming that Che motives both of the members .11· the majority of the Senate and the lower house as well as that of the Executive are of the very best. Is that correct? SENATOR PAREDES. Yes, Mr. Senator. SENATOR DELGADO. Ii Your Honor assumes that not'hi11i:r but the very best of motive has induced the majority of the Se1~ate and of the Lowel' House and also the Executive in the pai:sage of the bill, may we not assume also that the Chief Executive will only eliminate the judges who should Or. eliminated and keep and promote those who are deserving of promotion? SENATOR PAREDES. Which comes to prove my t11eory that this bill will be used to get rid of some who are supposed not to be good. SENATOR DELGADO. Will Your Honor be agreeable to l'emove those who should be removed? SENATOR PAREDES. Yes. SENATOR DELGADO. And those that should be promoted should be promoted? SENATOR PAREDES. Absolutely, but follow the constitutional and legal procedure. If they should be removed, why not! bring charges against them, And if you cannot bring charges because you have no sufficient cause for t·emoval, why do you remove them by this law? SENATOR DELGADO. If you assume that the bad judges will be removed, as long as the undesirable ones are removed and the desirable ones ue retained or promoted, what is the difference? SENATOR PAREDES. May I ask you a question in answer to yours. If we know that: somebody kills someone, but you cannot prove it, will you vote to send him to the gallows? SENATOR DELGADO. You assume the good faith of the Chief Executive? SENATOR PAREDES. I do assume. SENATOR DELGADO. That he wili not do anything that is not justified by the circumstances and t'hat, therefore, only undesirable ones will be removed and the desirable ones will be not only preserved but even promoted to higher positions? I thank you. SENATOR PAREDES. I assume and I accept and I will fight to defend the p1·oposition that the Chief Executive and everyone here are acl'ing with good intentions. But, Mr. President, we will not be the justices of the Supreme Court and our protestations may be outbalanced by the circumstances that I have mentioned. Mr. President, not all that should be in jail are in jail, and not all that! are in jail should be there, simply because human justice has its limitations, and courts have to decide according to the proofs and according to the opinion of the justices. So, I comply with my duty by presenting these modest observations of mine to the consideration of the majority, If you decide to approve the bill, I will try to do my best to help you perfect it, if it has any defects that may be conected. But I hope you will think twice before you approve the bill in the way it is. EDITOR'S NOTE: - The Lawyers Jo11rnal has received numerous requests from the members of the bar to have the pleadings and memoranda in the "Judges' case" <Felicisimo Ocampo, et al. vs. Sec1·eta,y-y of Justice, et al., G. R. No. L-7910) published. Due to space limitations and in view of the unusual length of the pleadings filed, the /fl1unal regrets that it can not publish them. However, the Journal will publish in the next issue, the respective memo1·anda submitted by the attorneys for the petiticiners.judges, and the Solicito1· General. Aug·ust 31, Hl54 ·rHE LA WYERS JOURNAL 391

Date

1954

Rights