VARGAS VS RILLORAZA

Posted by kaye lee on 3:49 PM

G.R. No. L-1612 February 26 1948 [Composition of the Supreme Court, ]

FACTS:
Petitioner assails the validity of Sec. 14 of the The People's Court Act,
Commonwealth Act 682, which provided that the President could designate Judges
of First Instance, Judges-at-large of First Instance or Cadastral Judges to sit as
substitute Justices of the Supreme Court in treason cases without them necessarily
having to possess the required constitutional qualifications of a regular Supreme
Court Justice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 14 of CA 682 is constitutional

RULING:
No. Sec. 14 of CA 582 is unconstitutional.

Article VIII, sections 4 and 5, of the Constitution do not admit any composition of the
Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice and Associate Justices therein
mentioned appointed as therein provided. And the infringement is enhanced and
aggravated where a majority of the members of the Court as in this case are
replaced by judges of first instance. It is distinctly another Supreme Court in
addition to this. And the constitution provides for only one Supreme Court.
Grounds for disqualification added by section 14 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 to
those already existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and continued
by it is not only arbitrary and irrational but positively violative of the organic law.

Constitutional requirement (Art. VIII Sec 5) provides that the members of the
Supreme Court should be appointed by the President with the consent of the CoA,
"Unless provided by law" in Sec 4 cannot be construed to authorize any legislation
which would alter the composition of the Supreme Court, as determined by the
Constitution.

However temporary or brief may be the participation of a judge designated under

Sec. 14 of PCA, there is no escaping the fact the he would be participating in the
deliberations and acts of the SC, as the appellate tribunal, and his vote would count
as much as that any regular Justice of the Court. "A temporary member" therefore
would be a misnomer, as that position is not contemplated by the Constitution,
where Sec.4 of Art. VIII only provides A Chief Justice and Associate Justices who
have to be thus appointed and confirmed (Sec5).