Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-1257 October 30, 1947

NIC NOR T !OR , petitioner, vs. "ONI# CIO N. G !IN $%& PE'RO O. RCI G , respondents. Tavora and Zandueta for petitioner. Mon and Gavina for respondent Gavina. Pedro O. Arciaga in his own behalf.

#ERI , J.: There is no question about the fact alleged in the petition, that the petitioner as appointed !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, and too& possession of his office on or about April '(, ')'(, that he has not resigned nor has been re*oved therefro*, and that he has ceased to act as such !ustice of the peace on +ece*ber '),', but reassu*ed his office after liberation, that is, on April -., '),/. According to section ) Article 0111 of the Constitution of the Philippines, the *e*bers of the "upre*e Court and all !udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior until the2 reach the age of sevent2 2ears,or beco*e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The fact that the petitioner has perfor*ed the duties of !ustice of the peace of the *unicipalit2 of "an #ernando, $a %nion, during the 3apanese occupation of the Philippines, b2 virtue of appoint*ent *ade b2 the Chai*an of the E4ecutive Co**ission, did not constitute an abandon*ent of his office held under the Co**on ealth, because the govern*ent established in the Philippines during the 3apanese occupation as not a foreign govern*ent, but a govern*ent established b2 the *ilitar2 occupant as an agenc2 thereof to preserve order during the occupation. This Court, in its resolution den2ing the *otion for reconsideration in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. alde! Tan Keh and "i!on 5./ Phil., ''67, held a*ong others the follo ing8 5/7 1t is argued ith insistence that the courts of the Co**on ealth continued in the Philippines b2 the belligerent occupant beca*e also courts of 3apan, and their !udg*ents and proceedings being acts of foreign courts can not no be considered valid and continued b2 the courts of the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent after the restoration of the latter. As e have alread2 stated in our decision the funda*ental reasons h2 said courts, hile functioning during the 3apanese regi*e, could not be considered as courts of 3apan, it is sufficient no to invite attention to the decision of the "upre*e Court of the %nited "tates in the case of The Ad*ittance, 3ec&er vs. Montgo*er2, '6 :o ., ,);< ', $a . ed., hich e did not dee* necessar2 to quote in our decision, in hich it as held that =the courts, established or sanctioned in Me4ico during the ar b2 the co**anders of the A*erican forces, ere nothing *ore than the agents of the *ilitar2 po er, to assist it in preserving order in the conquered territor2, and to protect the inhabitants in their persons and propert2 hile it as occupied b2 the A*erican ar*s. The2 ere sub!ect to the *ilitar2 po er, and their decisions under its control, henever the co**anding officer thought proper to interfere. The# were not courts of the $nited %tates& and had no right to ad!udicate upon a question of pri>e or no pri>e.= 5The Ad*ittance, 3ec&er vs. Montgo*er2, '6 :o ., ,);< ', $a . ed., -,?.7 The appoint*ent b2 President @s*eAa of the respondent Bonifacio N. 9avina as adBinteri* !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando on #ebruar2 ';, '),(, did not oust the petitioner fro* his office, not onl2 because such appoint*ent as disapproved b2 the Co**ission on Appoint*ents, but because the petitioner had the constitutional right to continue in office until he has reached the age of sevent2 2ears, and the President of the Co**on ealth had no po er to re*ove the petitioner fro* office ithout !ust cause and previous investigation. The appoint*ent of the other respondent Pedro @. Arciaga as !ustice of the peace of the sa*e *unicipalit2 *ade b2 the President of the Republic of the Philippines and approved b2 the Co**ission on Appoint*ents on 3ul2 -., '),(, did not re*ove the petitioner fro* his office as !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, since the petitioner had the constitutional right to continue as such !ustice of the peace until he has reached .? 2ears< and upon the cessation of the A*erican sovereignt2 over these 1slands and the procla*ation of the Philippine 1ndependence, the petitioner did not cease to be !ustice of the peace of said *unicipalit2 of "an #ernando, $a %nion. 1n this connection the riter of this opinion in his concurring opinion in the case of Brodett vs. +e la Rosa 5.. Phil., ./-7, held the follo ing8 The petitioners i*pugn the validit2 of the !udg*ent of the respondent !udge on the ground that, as said respondent as not reappointed b2 the President of the Republic of the Philippines, he *ust have ceased to be !udge upon the procla*ation of the 1ndependence of the Philippines. Presu*abl2 the petitionersC contention is based on the legal *a4i* of statutor2 construction D e'pressio unius est e'clusio alterius, and the provision of our Constitution relating to the officers of the Co**on ealth ho should continue in office after the procla*ation of our 1ndependence, hich sa2s8

The officials elected and serving under this Constitution shall be constitutional officers of the free and independent 9overn*ent of the Philippines and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directl2 under such 9overn*ent, and shall serve their full ter*s of office as prescribed in this Constitution. The Philippine 1ndependence Act pro*ulgated b2 the Congress of the %nited "tates on March -,, '),,, provides in its section - 5b7 5-7 as follo s8 5b7 The constitution Eof the PhilippinesF shall also contain the follo ing provisions, effective as of the date of the procla*ation of the President recogni>ing the independence of the Philippine 1slands, as hereinafter provided8 5-7 That the officials elected and serving under the constitution adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act shall be constitutional officers of the free and independent 9overn*ent of the Philippine 1slands and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directl2 under such 9overn*ent, and shall served their full ter*s of office as prescribed in the Constitution. The last quoted provision hich is incorporated in paragraph or section ' 5-7, Article G011, of the Constitution, constitutes a li*itation on the po er of the fra*ers of our Constitution to provide for the continuance or cessation of the officers therein *entioned. As the2 ere not at libert2 to insert or not said provision, its inclusion in our Constitution can not be considered as the e4pression of their intention that the officers therein *entioned shall continue as officer of the free and independent govern*ent of the Philippines. Consequentl2, the *a4i* e'pressio unius est e'clusio alterius, hich is based upon the rules of logic and the natural or&ing of the hu*an *ind and serve as a guide in deter*ining the probable intention of the *a&ers of la s and constitutions e4pressl2 *entioning so*e and not others, can not be applied or invo&ed in support of the contention that, fro* the inclusion of said provision it *a2 be inferred that it as the intention of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention hich drafted our Constitution that appointive officers and e*plo2ees and other elective officials should cease or not continue in office upon the procla*ation of our 1ndependence. @n the other hand, as the fra*ers of our Constitution ere free to provide in the Constitution for the cessation or continuation in office of all appointive officers and e*plo2ees and all other elective officers under the Co**on ealth, if it ere their intention that the2 should not continue or cease, the2 could and should have so e4pressl2 provided< but the2 did not do so. @n the contrar2, the Constitution prescribes that =The *e*bers of the "upre*e Court and all !udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior, until the2 reach the age of sevent2 2ears or beco*e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office,= 5section ), Article 01117< that =The Auditor 9eneral shall hold office for a ter* of ten 2ears and *a2 not be reappointed= 5section ', Article G17< that =No officer or e*plo2ee in the Civil "ervice shall be re*oved or suspended e4cept for cause as provided b2 la = 5section ,, Article G117. There is no doubt that the Constitution of the Philippines is a Constitution for the Co**on ealth and the Republic. Article G0111 thereof provides that =The govern*ent established b2 this Constitution shall be &no n as the Co**on ealth of the Philippines. %pon the final and co*plete ithdra al of the sovereignt2 of the %nited "tates and the procla*ation of the Philippine 1ndependence, the Co**on ealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be &no n as the Republic of the Philippines.= The onl2 provisions of the Constitution not applicable to the Co**on ealth are those of Article G011 hich beca*e effective upon the declaration of the 1ndependence of the Philippines< and the provisions of the Constitution not applicable to the Republic of the Philippines are those of Article G01, or the transitor2 provisions fro* the for*er colonial or territorial to the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent. The Constitution, referring to the transition fro* the for*er Philippine 9overn*ent to the Co**on ealth, provides in its section ,, Article G01, that =All officers and e*plo2ees of the 9overn*ent of the Philippine 1slands shall continue in office until the Congress shall provide other ise, but all officers hose appoint*ents are b2 this Constitution vested in the President shall vacate their respective offices, upon the appoint*ent and qualification of their successors, if such appoint*ent is *ade ithin a period of one 2ear fro* the date of the inauguration of the Co**on ealth of the Philippines.= %ndoubtedl2, the fra*ers of our Constitution dee*ed it necessar2 to so provide in order to avoid an2 doubt about their authorit2 to continue in office< because the said officers and e*plo2ees ere appointed b2 authorit2of the People of the %nited "tates represented b2 the Congress and the President of the %nited "tates, or the 3ones $a < hile the officers and e*plo2ees of the Co**on ealth of the Philippines ere to be appointed b2 authorit2 of the People of the Philippines in ho* the sovereignt2 resides and fro* ho* all govern*ent authorit2 e*anates, according to section ', Article 11 of the Constitution of the Philippines. But there is no si*ilar provision in the Constitution covering the transition fro* the Co**on ealth to the Republic. Evidentl2, it as not dee*ed necessar2 to provide e4pressl2 in the Constitution for the continuation of all the officers and e*plo2ees of the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent, because tha2 had to continue, in the absence of an e4press provision to the contrar2, for the2 are officers and e*plo2ees appointed b2 authorit2 of the People of the Philippines, since the Co**on ealth as ell as the Republic are govern*ent established b2 the sa*e #ilipino people in the e4ercise of their sovereignt2, li*ited under the Co**on ealth and co*plete or absolute after the procla*ation of our independence. That the Co**on ealth of the Philippines as a sovereign govern*ent, though not absolute but sub!ect to certain li*itations i*posed in the 1ndependence Act and incorporated as @rdinance appended to our Constitution, as recogni>ed not onl2 b2 the $egislative +epart*ent or Congress of the %nited "tates in approving the 1ndependence $a quoted and the Constitution of the Philippines, hich contains the declaration that ="overeignt2 resides in the people and all govern*ent authorit2 e*anates fro* the*= 5section ', Article 117, but also b2 the E4ecutive +epart*ent of the %nited "tates. The late President Roosevelt in one of his *essages to Congress said, a*ong others, =As 1 stated on August '-, '),6, the %nited "tates in practice regards the Philippines as having no the status as a govern*ent of other independent nations D in fact all the attributes of co*plete and respected nationhood.= 5Congressional Record 0ol. -), part (, page ;'.67. And it is a principle upheld b2 the "upre*e Court of the %nited "tates in *an2 cases, a*ong the* in the case of

3ones vs. %nited "tates 5'6. %. "., -?-< 6, $a ed., ()', ()(7 that the question of sovereignt2 is =a purel2 political question, the deter*ination of hich b2 the legislative and e4ecutivedepart*ents of an2 govern*ent conclusivel2 binds the !udges, as ell as all other officers, citi>ens and sub!ects.= A contrar2 construction, that is, that all appointive officers and e*plo2ees of the 9overn*ent of the Co**on ealth, fro* the Chief 3ustice of the "upre*e Court to an office *essenger had ceased ipso facto or auto*aticall2 upon the procla*ation of the 1ndependence of the Philippines, ould lead to enor*ous public inconvenience, a co*plete parali>ation of all the functions of the govern*ent, since it ould necessaril2 require a considerable period of ti*e to appoint the ne officers and e*plo2ees in their place. And if the2 ere to hold over or continue in office until their successors are appointed, as there is no li*itation provided in the Constitution as to the ti*e ithin hich the appointing po ers *a2 or *ust appoint their successors, a sort of +a*oclesC s ord ould be left hanging and read2 to fall over the heads of said officers and e*plo2ees for an indefinite period of ti*e, to the detri*ent of the proper discharge of their functions and the independence that is to be e4pected fro* !udges in the perfor*ance of their duties, essential for a good and clean govern*ent. 1n vie of all the foregoing, it is evident that the respondent !udge had the constitutional right to continue acting as !udge after the procla*ation of the Philippine 1ndependence, and that, therefore, the !udg*ent rendered b2 hi* in the present case is that of a !udge de (ure and valid. The fact that during the pendenc2 of the present case before this Court, the petitioner reached the age of sevent2 2ears, can not affect the question involved in the present case, that is, hether or not the petitioner as the rightful !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, at the ti*e the respondent Arciaga as appointed on 3ul2, '),(, !ustice of the peace in lieu of the petitioner, and after ards until he has reached the age of sevent2 2ears. 1n vie of the foregoing, e conclude and hold that the petitioner had the right to continue in office until he has reached the age of sevent2 2ears, ith all the the privileges and e*olu*ents appurtenant to the office< and that the adBinteri* appoint*ent of respondent 9avina disapproved, and of the respondent Arciaga approved, b2 the the Co**ission on Appoint*ents, had no effect hatever on the status of the petitioner as !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando until he has reached the age of sevent2 2ears. Moran& C.).& *riones& Padilla& and Tuason& )).& concur.

Se($r$te O()%)o%*

+IL 'O, J., concurring8 1 concur in the conclusion of the *a!orit2 that petitioner had the right to continue in office until he reached the age of sevent2 2ears, ith all the privileges and e*olu*ents thereto, appertaining, and that the ad interim appoint*ents of respondent 9avina hich as disapproved b2 the Co**ission on Appoint*ents, and that of respondent Arciaga hich as approved thereb2, did not operate to deprive petitioner of his right and title to said office until he reached the age of .? 2ears on 3anuar2 ;, '),.. M2 reasons follo 8 Although 1 a* of opinion that the constitutional right of *e*bers of the "upre*e Court and !udges of inferior courts to hold office during good behavior until the2 reach at the age of .? 2ears or beco*e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office, is aivable b2 the incu*bent, and should be construed ithout pre!udice to the legal effects of abandon*ent in proper cases, 1 do not see fro* the record that petitioner has aived said constitutional right nor that he has abandoned his office as !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, to hich he as appointed and in hich he dul2 qualified, and hich he too& possession of on April '(, ')'(. PetitionerCs appoint*ent as !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, b2 the Chair*an of the Philippine E4ecutive Co**ission, and hich he alleges to have accepted =fearful that he *ight be branded or suspected as being antiB3apanese ith in!urious consequences to hi*self and his fa*il2,= under hich he avers that he =acted, not illingl2, as such 3ustice of the Peace until 3ul2, '),,, but re*aining all the ti*e lo2al of the %nited "tates of A*erica and the Co**on ealth of the Philippines and no to the Republic of the Philippines= 5Co*plaint, paragraph 11 EcF, there being no allegation on the part of respondents that petitioner acted illfull2 and dislo2all2 to ard his la ful govern*ent and to that the %nited "tates7, did not in *2 opinion or& an abandon*ent of his Co**on ealth appoint*ent, for the double reason that if under the theor2 of the *a!orit2 of this Court the Philippine E4ecutive Co**ission as a de facto govern*ent, then it as a different govern*ent fro* the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent, hich latter, under such theor2, *ust be considered as suspended in the areas here such de facto govern*ent operated, ith the consequences that hen petitioner acted as !ustice of the peace of said de facto govern*ent his functions under the de (ure govern*ent ere in a state of suspension, hich in turn give rise to the result that hedid not need to abandon his Co**on ealth appoint*ent in order to be able to accept the occupation appoint*ent< and that if the Philippine E4ecutive Co**ission as not even a de facto govern*ent but a *ere puppet organi>ation, under *2 theor2, then petitionerCs appoint*ent thereb2 as and is null and void so far as the Republic is concerned< and, lastl2, so far as the record reveals, his acceptance of the occupation appoint*ents as under ene*2 pressure, and for that reason as null and void an2 a2.

Besides, it appears that petitioner after the reestablish*ent of the Co**on ealth govern*ent, *ore specificall2 on April -., '),/, as recalled to the office of the !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, and thereafter acted and continued to act as such !ustice of the peace until +ece*ber '?, '),/, hen he fell ill and obtained fro* the !udge of the Court of #irst 1nstance of the province a grant of sic& leave, upon hich occasion respondent 9avina, ho as !ustice of the peace of "an 9abriel and "an 3uan, $a %nion, as designated to act in petitionerCs place =until he 5petitioner7 shall return to dut2,= 5E4h. '7. These facts clearl2 sho that the *ind of the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent petitioner had not been guilt2 of dislo2alt2 or ithin breach of his oath of office during the occupation. Pablo and Perfecto& )). concur. RE"@$%T1@N "ecember ++& +,-. #ERI , J.: This Court did not e4ercise its discretion ot require the appearance of the "olicitor 9eneral in this case under section -6, Rule 6, because the action does not involve the validit2 of an2 treat2, la , ordinance,or e4ecutive order or regulation< and did not notif2 hi* of the filing of this action, because it is not the dut2 of the "olicitor 9eneral to represent the respondent Arciaga under section '((' 5b7 of the Ad*inistrative Code, since this is a /uo warranto proceeding instituted against the said respondent, not in his official capacit# as (ustice of the peace& but in his private capacit2 as an alleged intruder or person alleged to be unla full2 holding the public office of !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, to hich the latter is entitled under the Constitution. :o ever, e shall pass upon the *erits of the *otion for reconsideration and ne trial filed b2 the office of the "olicitor 9eneral 5signed b2 the #irst Assistant "olicitor 9eneral Roberto A. 9ian>on and "olicitor #rancisco Carreon7, in order to put in bolder relief the unassailabilit2 of our opinion on the right of the appointive officers of the Co**on ealth to continue as officers of the Republic. #or clearnessC sa&e, e shall first state the basis of our opinion and then the argu*ents of the "olicitor 9eneral. He hold, in our decision in this case, that the petitioner could not be re*oved fro* his office as !ustice of the peace of "an #ernando, $a %nion, because section ), Article 0111, of the Constitution provides that =the *e*bers of the "upre*e Court and all !udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior, until the2 reach the age of sevent2 2ears, or beco*e incapacitated to discharge their office.= The transition fro* the Co**on ealth to the Republic did not affect those officers appointed or holding office during the Co**on ealth, since there can be no doubt that the Constitution of the Philippines is for the Co**on ealth as ell as for the Republic. The Constitution is for both, because Article G0111 thereof provides that =The govern*ent established b2 this Constitution shall be &no n as the Co**on ealth of the Philippines. %pon the final and co*plete ithdra al of the sovereignt2 of the %nited "tates and the procla*ation of the Philippine independence, the Co**on ealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be &no n as the Republic of the Philippines.= He stated in our decision that, it cannot be contended that the intention of the fra*ers of the Constitution to provide that appointive officers of the Co**on ealth should cease or not continue as officers of the Republic, *a2 be inferred fro* the inclusion of the provision of section - 5b7 of the Philippine 1ndependence Act of T2dingsBMc+uffie $a in our Constitution 5as section ' E-F, Article G0117 to the effect that =The officials elected and serving under this constitution shall be constitutional officers of the free and independent 9overn*ent of the Philippines and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directl2 under such govern*ent, and shall serve their full ter* of office as prescribed in the Constitution. Because, the Congress of the %nited "tates having required the inclusion of the above quoted provision in our Constitution, the fra*ers thereof ere not free or at libert2 to insert or not said provision therein< and therefore, the legal *a4i* =e4pressio unius est e4clusio alterius= is not applicable, for this *a4i* is based upon the rules of logic and the natural or&ing of the hu*an *ind, and serves as a guide in deter*ining the probable intention of the *a&ers of la s and constitutions in *entioning so*e and not others of the sa*e class. The onl2 argu*ents of the "olicitor 9eneral in support of his *otion for reconsideration and ne trial hich deserve so*e consideration, boils do n to a s2llogis* the pre*ises of hich e are quoting verbatim fro* his *e*orandu*, to it8 Ma!or pre*ise8 =Appl2ing the *a4i* 5inclusio unius est e4clusio alterius7there can be no question as to the intention of the %nited "tates Congress, in providing that elective officials should continue as officials of the independent Republic, to e4clude those not belonging to that categor2 of officers Ethat is, that the latter should not continue in office upon procla*ation of our 1ndependenceF. @n the other hand, the fra*ers of our Constitution, b2 inserting ithout alteration or a*end*ent the constitutional provision in question *ust be dee*ed to have also adopted the intention of the Congress of the %nited "tates as e4pressed in the T2dingsB Mc+uffie Act.= Minor pre*ise8 =The fra*ers of the Constitution ere *ost certainl2 free to provide that other officers of the Co**on ealth, besides those *entioned in said provision of the Philippine 1ndependence Act, should continue in office under the Republic. Not having done so, the clear inference is that the fra*ers of the Constitution li&e ise adopted the intention of the %nited "tates Congress.= Conclusion8 Therefore, it as also the intention of the fra*ers of the Constitution that the appointive and other elective officers of the Co**on ealth should not continue as officers under the Republic. The *a!or and *inor pre*ises of the s2llogis* are not correct, and therefore the conclusion is untenable. The *a!or pre*ise is incorrect, since it assu*es that it as the intention of Congress, in requiring the insertion of the aboveBquoted provision, that the appointive and other elective officers of the Co**on ealth should not continue in office as officers of the

independent 9overn*ent of the Philippines. #or it is evidentl2 clear that the intention of the Congress of the %nited "tates, in requiring that our Constitution should contain said transitor2 provision, as to establish onl2 that li*itation on the Constitutiton and leave the fra*ers thereof free or at libert2 to provide hether or not the appointive and other elective officers of the Co**on ealth should continue as officers of the independent 9overn*ent of the Philippines. The "olicitor 9eneral ad*its that =the fra*ers of the Constitution ere free to provide that other officers of the Co**on ealth should continue in office under the Republic,= and consequentl2 that the2 should also not continue. :ad it been the intention of the %nited "tates Congress that all the other officers of the Co**on ealth should not continue as officers of the Republic, it should have enacted a provision to that effect a*ong those required b2 the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act to be included in our Constitution. The *inor pre*ise is also incorrect, for it as not possible for the fra*ers of our Constitution to have adopted b2 *ere i*plication the assu*ed intention of the %nited "tates Congress that the appointive and other elective officers of the Co**on ealth should not continue as officers of the Republic. 1n the first place, because there as no such an intention of the %nited "tates Congress as alread2 sho n. And, besides because even assu*ing arguendo that the %nited "tates Congress, in requiring the insertion in our Constitution of the provision under consideration, had the intention that the appointive and other elective officers of the Co**on ealth should not continue as officers of the Republic, it can not be inferred that the fra*ers of our Constitution, in including said provision and not providing other ise, have adopted such intention of the Congress. #or the si*ple reason that the provision of the T2dingsBMc+uffie $a under consideration as not adopted but i*posed upon the fra*ers of our Constitution, and the latter ere not free to include it or not. To adopt a constitutional or statutor2 provision ith its necessar2 i*plications into another, presupposes freedo* to do or not to do so. The legal *a4i* =inclusio unius est e4clusio alterius= is predicated upon oneCs o n voluntar2 act and not upon that of others. Therefore, *otion is denied. Moran& C.).& Pablo& Perfecto& *riones& and Tuason& )).& concur. Paras& ).& concurs in the result. PER#ECTO, J., concurring8 The "olicitor 9eneral, in a pleading dated Nove*ber ',, '),., *oved for the reconsideration of our decision in this case pro*ulgated on @ctober 6?, '),.. The *ain question raised in the *otion refers to the interpretation of subsection - of section ' of Article G011 of the Constitution hich reads as follo s8 The officials elected and serving under this Constitution shall be constitutional officers of the free and independent 9overn*ent of the Philippines and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directl2 under such 9overn*ent, and shall serve their full ter*s of office as prescribed in this Constitution. The *ovant contends that, appl2ing to the provision the $atin *a4i* =e4pressio unius est e4clusio alterius,= e should reverse the doctrine set in our decision to the effect that the appointive officers of the Co**on ealth continue, ithout the need of a ne appoint*ent under theRepublic, as de (ure officers of the Republic and *a2 not be re*oved fro* office b2 the appoint*ent of other persons in their places e4cept in the *anner and for the cause provided b2 the Constitution or b2 statutor2 provision. The question herein discussed has been raised for the first ti*e in the petition dated 3ul2 -), '),(, filed in the original case of prohibition of Brodett vs. +e la Rosa. Petitioners in said case i*punged the validit2 of an order issued on 3ul2 '(, '),(, b2 3udge Mariano $. de la Rosa, of the Court of #irst 1nstance of Manila, upon the fact that said !udge has been appointed as such before the procla*ation of independence on 3ul2 ,, '),(, and that not having been appointed under the Republic, he ceased to have authorit2 to issue the order in question b2 virtue of the constitutional provision no under our consideration. Petitioners argued that in accordance ith subsection - of section ' of Article G011 of the Constitution, upon the cessation of the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent on 3ul2 ,, '),(, all its officers, ith the e4ception of the elective ones, ceased to have an authorit2. The2 *aintain that to retain said authorit2 3udge +e la Rosa *ust have been appointed ane b2 the President under the Republic before issuing the order in question. PetitionerCs contention as unani*ousl2 re!ected b2 this Court in its decision pro*ulgated on +ece*ber ';, '),(. To elaborate upon the CourtCs theor2, Mr. 3ustice #eria rote a concurring opinion, the state*ents in hich have been adopted in the *a!orit2 decision in the instant case. After a careful reBe4a*ination of the question, e cannot find our a2 for reversing our pronounce*ent as to the inapplicabilit2 of the *a4i*. There is no single valid ground in the argu*ents adduced b2 the "olicitor 9eneral to support the reversal. The constitutional provision in question *ust be read and construed, not as an isolated and independent precept, but as an integral part of the hole docu*ent in hich it is e*bodied, and in the light of the histor2 of its enact*ent and insertion in the funda*ental la . As truthfull2 stated b2 the riter of the *a!orit2 decision in this case, the provision has been inserted in co*pliance ith one of the specific *andates of the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act. As one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, e are in a position to certif2 that this state*ent is based on fact. 1t *ust be noted that there are three separate articles in the Constitution reproducing provisions of the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act D Article G01, Transitor# Provisions, Article G011, %pecial Provisions 0ffective $pon the Proclamation of the 1ndependence of the Philippines, and unnu*bered article entitled Ordinance Appended to the Constitution. At the ti*e e drafted the Constitution e had in *ind t o para*ount purposes, to produce the best possible constitution and to insure its approval b2 the President of the

%nited "tates. Hhenever e felt that there as a conflict bet een the t o, e sacrificed the first for the sa&e of the second, having in *ind that hatever defects the docu*ent *ight have could later be cured b2 a*end*ent hen the *etropolis shall have ithdra n co*pletel2 its sovereignt2 over our countr2. The draft, as transferred to the Co**ittee on "t2le, alread2 e*bodied several provisions of the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act. "till concerned ith the idea of insuring the approval of the President of the %nited "tates of A*erica, the Co**ittee on "t2le, co*posed of the *ost representive *e*bers of the Convention, including so*e of the fore*ost leaders of the t o do*inant political parties of the countr2, both co**itted to the platfor* of securing our national independence, added to the ne4t *an2 other provisions ta&en fro* the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act, so as to drive in the *ind of President Roosevelt the conviction that none of the conditions i*posed b2 the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act *a2 re*ain unfulfilled. He anted to be sure that the Constitution should co*e into effect and that upon the ter*ination of the tenB2ear transitor2 period our national independence shall be proclai*ed. The co*plete success of the political ai*s of the Constitutional Convention is born out b2 the events of *ore than one decade of our national histor2. Reading the provision in question, not as an isolated unit, but as an integral part, so it is, of the funda*ental la , there is absolutel2 no ground in support of the theor2 advanced b2 the "olicitor 9eneral. The provisions of Articles G01 and G011 and of the @rdinance are of special and transitor2 character and, therefore, should be strictl2 construed. Nothing ought to be read in the* hich is not clearl2 intended b2 their clear ording. There is nothing in the provision in question to the effect that nonBelective officers and e*plo2ees of the Co**on ealth shall cease in their office upon the procla*ation of independence, or that in the Republic the2 shall be divested of the rights, prerogatives and protection guaranteed and afforded to the* b2 constitutional or statutor2 provisions during the Co**on ealth. Being declarator2 and affir*ative, the provision in question cannot co*prehend an2 *atter not covered b2 the clear *eaning of its ords. "ection 10 of Article G0 of the Constitution provides8 No officer or e*plo2ee of the Civil "ervice shall be re*oved or suspended e4cept for cause as provided b2 la . There is absolutel2 no inco*patibilit2 bet een this precept and the specia lprovision in question. There is no conflict bet een the provision that elective officials of the Co**on ealth shall co*plete their full ter*s of office after the procla*ation of independence and the precept that the tenure of office of civil service officers and e*plo2ees shall not be interrupted sub!ect onl2 to re*oval or suspension for cause as provided b2 la . %nder section ) of Article 0111 of the Constitution, the *e*bers of the "upre*e Court and all !udges of inferior courts =shall hold office during good behavior, until the2 reach the age of .? 2ears, or beco*e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.= This guarant2 in favor of all *e*bers of the !udiciar2 is not and cannot be affected b2 the provision eare discussing. The t o provisions *a2 go hand in hand ithout an2 conflict. The philosoph2 of the Constitution is pre*ised on the idea of continuit2 and stabilit2 as a general principle guiding the transition fro* preBCo**on ealth to Republic 9overn*ent so as to avoid a vacuu* or hiatus disrupting the orderl2 processes of societ2 and leading to anarch2. #ro* a substantial point of vie , the change and transfer fro* the preBCo**on ealth 9overn*ent to the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent has been *ore significant and i*portant than the change fro* the Co**on ealth to the Republic. As a *atter of fact, the last transition has been *ostl2 a *atter of for*. %nder Article G0111 of the Constitution, =upon the final and co*plete ithdra al of the sovereignt2 of the %nited "tates and the procla*ation of the Philippine 1ndependence, the Co**on ealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be &no n as the Republic of the Philippines.= A *ere *atter of na*e. The change fro* preBCo**on ealth to Co**on ealth 9overn*ent has been attended b2 a revolution, peaceful and orderl2 but no less real. The A*erican 9overnor 9eneral, appointed b2 the President of a foreign countr2, has been replaced b2 a Chief E4ecutive elected b2 the free ill of the #ilipino people. 1t see*s unnecessar2 to elaborate on further details as to the revolutionar2 change fro* A*erican govern*ent to a #ilipino govern*ent, fro* a foreign to a national govern*ent. Even the funda*ental concept of national sovereignt2 started onl2 to beco*e a realit2 since the establish*ent of the Co**on ealth. "uch national sovereignt2 of the #ilipino people has since then beco*e recogni>ed b2 the %nited "tates of A*erica hen, b2 authorit2 of the Congress of the %nited "tates, President Roosevelt approved our Constitution here it is declared8 =The Philippines is a Republican state. "overeignt2 resides in the people and all govern*ent authorit2 e*anates fro* the*. 5"ection ', Article 11.7 1n *ore than one state*ent issued during the last ar, President Roosevelt has officiall2 recogni>ed our govern*ent of a sovereign countr2. That recognition of our national sovereignt2 has been ratified b2 all the *e*bers of the %nited Nations, not onl2 hen the Philippines too& part in the organi>ation of the %nited Nations, but hen all the other *e*bers have accepted the ratification of the Charter *ade b2 our "enate on August 6?, '),/, al*ost a 2ear before the procla*ation of independence. The general rule of continuit2 and stabilit2, l2ing behind the philosoph2 follo ed b2 the drafters of the Constitution, is supported b2 the fact that, in order that the President of our people *a2 place in govern*ent, especiall2 in &e2 positions, *en of his confidence, in substitution of those appointed b2 the A*erican 9overnor 9eneral, it has been necessar2 to insert the e4ception provided in section , of Article G01, hich reads as follo s8

All officers and e*plo2ees in the e4isting 9overn*ent of the Philippine 1slands shall continue in office until the Congress shall provide other ise, but all officers hose appoint*ents are b2 this Constitution vested in the President shall vacate their respective, offices upon the appoint*ent and qualification of their successors, if such appoint*ent is *ade ithin a period of one 2ear fro* the date of the inauguration of the Co**on ealth of the Philippines. 1t ill be noted that this section enunciates first the general rules of continuit2 and stabilit2 and then proceeds to provide for an e4ception, hich is perfectl2 understandable if e ta&e into consideration the revolutionar2 change resulting fro* the replace*ent of a foreign appointive Chief E4ecutive b2 an elective #ilipino President. The transition fro* the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent to the 9overn*ent of the Republic being *erel2 for*al, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not perceive an2 reason h2 the appointive officers should be disturbed in their positions. B2 the sa*e to&en b2 hich e did not feel it necessar2 to disturb in their positions the *inor officers and e*plo2ees upon the advent of the Co**on ealth, because their functions are strictl2 ad*inistrative and are regulated b2 Civil "ervice rules, in accordance ith Article G11 of the Constitution and pertinent statutor2 provisions, and there as no reasons to believe that the continuation in office of Co**on ealth *inor officers and e*plo2ees *a2 offer an2 obstacle to an2 ad*inistrative polic2 hich the #ilipino President *a2 adopt or an2 legislative polic2 hich the #ilipino President *a2 adopt or an2 legislative polic2 hich the National Asse*bl2 *a2 enact, in section , of Article G01 e circu*scribed, the e4ception to officers hose appoint*ents are vested upon the President on the ground that *an2 of the* ere e4ercising polic2Bdeter*ining functions to control and supervise hich the President should have a free hand for the success of his ad*inistration. %pon the advent of the Republic, polic2Bdeter*ining officers derived their appoint*ent fro* the elective President of the Philippines and not fro* an2 other Chief E4ecutive. %nder our "2ste* of representative de*ocrac2, as established b2 the funda*ental la , their authorit2 e*anated fro* the sovereign people, the latter being represented b2 the elective officials ho ill continue holding their offices after independence. There as absolutel2 no reason h2 e should have authori>ed a ne reva*ping of the govern*ent, prone to provo&e unnecessar2 political co*plications, uncertaint2 and uneasiness in public service, set aside *erits in the service, and give rise to understandable *achinations, each and all of hich are not conduciveto the bolstering of the public interest but, on the contrar2, are highl2 detri*ental to the general ellBbeing of the people. MovantCs theor2, besides lac&ing an2 basis in the clear te4t of the Constitution, is highl2 dangerous. 1n effect, it ill give the President unli*ited discretion to change part of or the hole *e*bership of the "upre*e Court, the great *a!orit2 of the !udges of inferior courts, and other officers hose appoint*ent is vested in hi* b2 the Constitution, and high e4ecutive officers unli*ited discretion to replace ith outsiders, e4cluding political favorites, thousands upon thousnads of officers and e*plo2ees in the civil service, the over hel*ing *a!orit2 of ho* have been rendering long 2ears of honest, faithful, efficient, and *eritorious service to the govern*ent and to the people. "hall an2 one be surprised if under such situation the bac&bone of our !udicial s2ste* and the solid bod2 of our civil service shall be bro&en into pieces to be used as pa ns in political *aneuversI After s*ashing the principle of stabilit2 hich guarantees the independence of the !udiciar2 and an honest and efficient civil service, the resulting situation of insecurit2 ill not fail to lead to evil consequences, highl2 detri*ental to public peace. No one can ignore the possibilit2 that the situation *a2 be used to further entrench in govern*ent the political part2 in po er, no *atter hat the people *a2 feel about it, and ipe out all opposition to insure the e4istence of a oneBpart2 s2ste*, a step be2ond hich lies a truculent dictatorship. 3udicial independence and civil service stabilit2 are indespensable in the de*ocratic s2ste* of govern*ent established b2 the Constitution. Their necessar2 alternatives ill be an unpardonable betra2al of our conscience and of our people. The other grounds alleged in the *otion for reconsideration being also un*eritorious, so *uch so that e dee* it unnecessar2 to aste an2 ti*e on the*, e hold and so vote that the *otion should be, as it is no , denied. +IL 'O, J., concurring8 1 concur in the foregoing resolution, ithout pre!udice to *2 concurring opinion hen this case as decided originall2. 1 onl2 ish to add that hen Article G0111 of the Constitution as included therein, providing that =upon the final and co*plete ithdra al of the sovereignt2 of the %nited "tates and the procla*ation of Philippine independence, the Co**on ealth of thePhilippines shall thenceforth be &no n as the Republic of the Philippines, =the fra*ers *ust have intended the Republic of the Philippines, hich as there provided to automaticall# co*e into e4istence upon the happening of the event therein *entioned, to be a republican govern*ent co*plete ith the sa*e three great depart*ents, their respective bureaus, divisions and subordinate offices, and their respective personnel , that *ade up the 9overn*ent of the Co**on ealth of the Philippines, hich as thus to be transfor*ed into the Republic. B2 its ver2 nature a republic, as that conte*plated b2 the T2dingsBMc+uffie Act and the Constitution of the Philippines adopted pursuant thereto, is a tripartite for* of govern*ent co*posed of the legislative, the e4ecutive, and the !udicial depart*ents. Most assuredl2, the fra*ers did not intend that upon the ithdra al of the sovereignt2 of the %nited "tates and the procla*ation of the independence of the Philippines there should e*erge a republic ithout a !udicial depart*ent and ithout all other govern*ental offices occupied b2 appointive officials, as ell as elective ones not constitutional in nature< and !ust a certainl2 can be assu*ed that said fra*ers did not intend to leave ith the ne l2 born republic upon its e*ergence onl2 the na*es of the offices and positions constituting the !udiciar2 , as ell as such other appointive and elective offices as ere not constitutional in nature, ithout their incu*bents ho ere occcup2ing the* under the Co**on ealth 9overn*ent at the ver2 *o*ent of its transfor*ation into the Republic. 1f it be considered, as 1 thin& it should, that the fra*ers of the Constitution in Article G0111 therefore intended that all the great depart*ents of the Co**on ealth govern*ent, ith all their personnel, should continue intact and go ith the govern*ent hen it as auto*aticall2 transfor*ed into that of the Republic of the Philippines upon the happening of the historic event therein spo&en of, it ill follo ithout sa2ing that those of said officials hose offices ere constitutional ould continue in their respective offices b2 virtue of the sa*e constitution, a*ong hose provisions section section ) of Article 0111 ould still continue

to govern. Concretel2 referring to the !udiciar2, as e have to in the present incident, it is ele*entar2 that a court can not e4ist ithout a !udge 5-' C. 3. "., p. -',, section '6)7. Therefore, !udicial officers referred to in said section ) ere under the Republic, !ust as the2 had under the Co**on ealth, to =hold office during good behavior, until the2 reach the age of sevent2 2ears, or beco*e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.=