Post by atty36252 on Apr 7, 2008 19:48:38 GMT -5
In 1986, shortly after EDSA, President Aquino requested the courtesy resignation of the entire government machinery, including the Supreme Court. On April 16, 1986, she issued Executive Order No. 12, declaring the reorganization of the Supreme Court as having been completed. To that Court, she appointed Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee and Associate Justices Vicente Abad Santos, Jose V. Feria, Pedro L. Yap, Marcelo B. Fernan, Andres R. Narvasa, Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, Nestor B. Alampay, Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. and Isagani A. Cruz.
There were four reappointees - the Chief Justice, and Justices Melencio Herrera, Abad Santos and Gutierrez. Because it was a revolutionary government, it was starting on a clean slate. For legal purposes then, the reappointments were new appointments; for this reason, the holdovers did not retain their seniority, and were junior to the new appointees.
This was practically, a new Supreme Court.
Did the Court republish the Rules of Court? Not that I remember. So, using Justice Carpio’s reasoning in the concurring part of his opinion, all the proceedings before that Court since April 16, 1986 are infirm. That is the effect of exalting form over substance; of preferring the slogan to the fact; of upholding the rite over a right.
The fact is, the Rules had been published in the old government (Marcos), and the people had already been apprised. There was, therefore, no need for a republication.
We can also use the good old doctrine of Javellana here; the people acquiesced in the adoption of the Rules by the new Supreme Court, when they pleaded before said Court and all subordinate courts. Similarly, the fact that witnesses, whether from government or not have appeared before the Senate indicates that they have acquiesced in the adoption by the 14th Congress of the Rules of the previous Congress.
Clearly, this basis for granting the Neri petition is historically infirm.
There were four reappointees - the Chief Justice, and Justices Melencio Herrera, Abad Santos and Gutierrez. Because it was a revolutionary government, it was starting on a clean slate. For legal purposes then, the reappointments were new appointments; for this reason, the holdovers did not retain their seniority, and were junior to the new appointees.
This was practically, a new Supreme Court.
Did the Court republish the Rules of Court? Not that I remember. So, using Justice Carpio’s reasoning in the concurring part of his opinion, all the proceedings before that Court since April 16, 1986 are infirm. That is the effect of exalting form over substance; of preferring the slogan to the fact; of upholding the rite over a right.
The fact is, the Rules had been published in the old government (Marcos), and the people had already been apprised. There was, therefore, no need for a republication.
We can also use the good old doctrine of Javellana here; the people acquiesced in the adoption of the Rules by the new Supreme Court, when they pleaded before said Court and all subordinate courts. Similarly, the fact that witnesses, whether from government or not have appeared before the Senate indicates that they have acquiesced in the adoption by the 14th Congress of the Rules of the previous Congress.
Clearly, this basis for granting the Neri petition is historically infirm.