Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Research

Good Essays
703 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Research
Corona’s “Midnight” Appointment: Legal or not?
January 19, 2012 · by Teki · in Government, Personal Musings, Philippines, Politics
Note: This blog is composed of 3 pages for easier reading.
These days as the local news media is rife with stories of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, people often hear the sentiment and impassioned opinion of a lot of our countrymen that the midnight appointment of SC Chief Justice Renato Corona was unconstitutional.
In my previous blog entry, i shared the view that Filipinos mostly allow themselves to be dictated upon by political and institutional forces. There is no harm in believing in these institutions. So long as the Filipino arrives at a fully informed choice, where he weighs pros and cons, listens to both approving and dissenting voices and opinions, and from there decide on his own. We have to go against this cultural mentality that being mediocre is enough, that run-of-the-mill thinking is a “happier” (and less stressful) alternative than pursuing knowledge. We have to raise the bar of our collective consciousness as a nation.

What Does The Constitution Say?
Article VII, Section 15: No Midnight Appointments
The argument made by people that Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice was unconstitutional makes reference to Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution. It must be noted that Article VII of the Constitution touches on the roles, responsibilities and duties of the Executive branch of the government, headed by the President. Sections 14, 15 and 16 cover rules governing how the President makes appointments. To quote from the 1987 Constitution:
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
Article VIII : The Judiciary
Note that what triggered Renato Corona’s appointment to Chief Justice was because of the retirement of then Chief Justice Reynato Puno scheduled on May 17, 2010. The vacancy of the highest position in Supreme Court provided then-President Arroyo the opportunity to fill that vacancy.
Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution lays down the responsibilities and duties entrusted upon the Judicial branch of government. Section 4. (1) mandates the composition of the Supreme court and the prescriptive period when a vacancy should be filled.
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
Also, Section 8.(5) and 9 of Article VIII defines the functions of the Judicial Bar and Council. One of JBC’s functions is to present to the President a list of nominees for any vacancy within the judiciary for appointment consideration. To quote:
Section 8.(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Section 17-21

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission of Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of…

    • 689 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to the US constitution, it affirms that the supreme court will have a jurisdiction in cases that affect high-profile state officers. An appellate court will only apply to other cases. The Congress, therefore, has the freedom of giving the supreme court an appellate jurisdiction since the constitution clearly states that the supreme court should have an original jurisdiction which in this case is appellate (Mason & Stephenson, 2015).…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    OUR LADY OF THE ANGELS

    • 973 Words
    • 4 Pages

    A. It shall be the duty of the President to preside at all meetings and call any special meetings she may deem necessary and appoint all Chairman of committees.…

    • 973 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    SECTION 1. No person who has served three terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as one term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than…

    • 2378 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The executive branch of the United States is also referred to as Presidency. Article 2 of the Constitution Section 1 refers to the President. Referring to Section 1 stating that the term is 4 years or until impeachment, death or inability to further claim duties and powers of office. Section 2 refers to the President also as the commander and chief of the Army, Navy and Statewide Militia. The President also has the power to appoint ambassadors, public ministers, supreme court judges as well as any other office whose state are not appointed. Section 3 states the President must give State of the Union to Congress for information for considerations of measures.…

    • 631 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With the case getting major attention and making it very historical, it bought the Judicial Branch of the legislature on an all the more even power premise with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The Founding fathers expected the braches of government to go about as balanced governance on one another. In spite of the fact that the quick impact of the choice was to deny energy to the court, its long-run impact has been to expand the Court’s energy by building up the tenet that it is insistently the area and obligation of the legal division to say what the law is. Since this case, the Supreme Court has been the last authority of the legality…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    • The U.S. Congress ratifies the Twenty-second Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms in office.…

    • 670 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The primary objection against the Judges’ Case model of appointments is that it finds no basis in constitutional text and is the product of a frenetic Court. Secondly, it places a potent CJP at the center of the judicial system, which severely compromises independence within the judiciary. The primacy accorded to his opinion further facilitated the judiciary’s transformation into a self-perpetuating institution. It also served to politicize the judiciary, which eroded the judiciary’s institutional impression in the public eye. Moreover, the lack of clarity surrounding the application of the seniority principle allowed room for maneuvering, making an already opaque procedure more indefinite and obscure. All of these observations confirm that…

    • 151 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury v. Madison brief

    • 373 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Court ruled that while writ of mandamus was the correct judicial means to order an official of the United States to do something required of him by law (in this case, deliver a commission), upon closer examination of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provided by the Judiciary act of 1789 (specifically, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus) the Court decided that it is in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. Court ruled that Congress does not…

    • 373 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The final issue before the Court was to validate their authority in the issuing of writs of mandamus. Since the court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Senate Reparations

    • 2035 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of the United States have important roles in determining the federal distribution of powers and acting as ‘Constitutional guardians’. Both courts also exercise their powers as ultimate appellate courts to safeguard liberal rights and to protect their citizens from arbitrary governmental powers under the rule of law. The quality of these courts is underpinned by the ‘impartiality, integrity, and independence’ of the judges, which depends largely on the framework of judicial appointments.…

    • 2035 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Models

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Supreme Court justices have a serious job of determining if something is unconstitutional or not. As with any big decision, there is a precise manor in which the justices decide weather an act is unconstitutional. There are three models that’s the courts follow. The first is the legal model. The legal model states that the court can base their rulings off of the previous rulings of the lower courts. The positive of this model is that the Supreme Court justices have a good background on what went on in the previous court and they can use that in order to interpret the constitution. The negative of this model is that the justices don’t have a clean interpretation of what happened. They are basing all of their knowledge on the last judges ruling,…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Executive branch

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages

    iii.Length of Term of Office: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years. ...(Article II of the Constitution)" Also, according to the twenty-second amendment the President can not hold office more than two terms.…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Corona`S Impeachment

    • 325 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Our Chief Justice Renato Corona is in very severe issue nowadays. Because of the issue upon the grounds of Betrayal of Public Trust, Culpable Violation of the Constitution, and Graft and Corruption, that renders him absolutely unfit for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But have you ever wonder why that issue comes along when President Benigno Aquino have been elected? Corona said that President Aquino wants him impeached because he wants to appoint a Chief Justice he could hold by the neck. Corona said that the President’s quarrel with his midnight appointment is that the President was denied the opportunity to appoint a Chief Justice he could hold by the neck. What he did not say is that by being appointed Chief Justice by Arroyo despite the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments, it was his own neck that was held by Arroyo. More than President Aquino appointing a Chief Justice he holds by the neck, which he never got to do, it is Arroyo who appointed the Chief Justice, Corona, so that she can hold him by the neck long after her term was over. Based on Renato Corona, that issue comes out just only because Pres. Aquino tried to pulled him out in the position of being Chief Justice for his hidden agenda, to become the owner of hacienda Luisita. But for me, either one of them says the truth or not, the most important is to prove that there is still justice in the…

    • 325 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays