Vargas vs. Rilloraza, Et Al. (G.R. No. L-1612)

Doctrine: Judicial Independence
Jorge Vargas vs. Emilio Rilloraza, et al.

G.R. No. L-1612
February 26, 1948
Facts:
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People’s Court Act
(Commonwealth Act No. 682). Section 14 provides that any Justice of the Supreme Court who
held any office or position under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the government
called Philippine Republic may not sit and vote in any case brought to that Court under section
thirteen hereof in which the accused is a person who held any office or position under either or
both the Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippine Republic or any branch,
instrumentality and/or agency thereof. If, on account of such disqualification, or because of any
of the grounds of disqualification of judges, in Rule 126, section 1 of the Rules of Court, or on
account of illness, absence or temporary disability the requisite number of Justices necessary to
constitute a quorum or to render judgment in any case is not present, the President may designate
such number of Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-large of First Instance, or Cadastral Judges,
having none of the disqualifications set forth in said section one hereof, as may be necessary to
sit temporarily as Justices of said Court, in order to form a quorum or until a judgment in said
case is reached. Petitioner alleged, among others, that such provision states the qualifications of
members of the Supreme Court, other than those provided in section 6, Article VIII of the
Philippine Constitution; it authorizes the appointment of members of the Supreme Court who do
not possess the qualifications set forth in section 6, Article VIII, of the Philippine Constitution;
and it removes from office the members of the Supreme Court by means of a procedure other
than impeachment, contrary to Article IX, of the Philippine Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not the Congress has the power to add to the pre-existing grounds of
disqualification of a Justice of the Supreme Court as provided for in said Section 14.
Ruling:
If said Section 14 were to be effective, such members of the Court who held any office or
position under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the government called Philippine
Republic would be disqualified from sitting and voting in the instant case, because the accused
herein is a person who likewise held an office or position at least under the Philippine Executive
Commission. In other words, what the Constitution in this respect ordained as a power and a duty
to be exercised and fulfilled by said members of the Court, the quoted section of the People’s
Court Act would prohibit them from exercising and fulfilling. What the constitution directs the
section prohibits. A clearer case of repugnancy to the fundamental law can hardly be imagined. It
goes without saying that, whether the matter of disqualification of judicial officers belongs to the
realm of adjective, or to that of substantive law, whatever modification, change or innovation the
legislature may propose to introduce therein, must not in any way contravene the provisions of
the constitution, nor be repugnant to the genius of the governmental system established thereby.
To disqualify any of these constitutional component members of the Court — particularly,

as in the instant case, a majority of them — in a treason case, is nothing short of pro tanto
depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law.
Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power. And if that judge is the one
designated by the constitution to exercise the jurisdiction of his court, as is the case with the
Justices of this Court, the deprivation of his or their judicial power is equivalent to the
deprivation of the judicial power of the court itself. It would seem evident that if the Congress
could disqualify members of this Court to take part in the hearing and determination of certain
collaboration cases it could extend the disqualification to other cases. The question is not one of
degree or reasonableness. It affects the very heart of judicial independence.

Vargas vs. Rilloraza, Et Al. (G.R. No. L-1612)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vargas vs. Rilloraza, Et Al. (G.R. No. L-1612)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vargas vs. Rilloraza, Et Al. (G.R. No. L-1612)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine: Judicial Independence

Jorge Vargas vs. Emilio Rilloraza, et al.

To disqualify any of these constitutional component members of the Court — particularly,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.