The next showdown occurred with the appointment of a new chief justice before
the May 2010 presidential election. The post-Marcos constitution bans “midnight
appointments,” so that an outgoing president may not reward his loyalists with
fixed-term posts in order to cramp his successor. President Arroyo insisted that the
ban did not apply to the chief justice, proceeded to make the appointment, and was
upheld by the Supreme Court.^47
Constitutional experiment on party lists and minorities
During this decade, the court further experimented with constitutional innovation
allowing party-list representatives to sit in Congress, in addition to those elected via
geographically allocated districts. First, the court allocated the 20 percentum of
Congressional seats reserved for party-list groups, “translat[ing] the Philippine legal
parameters [of representation and proportionality] into a mathematical equa-
tion.”
48
Second, the court limited the party-list system to those who represent
“marginalized and underrepresented” sectors.
49
Ten years later, the court squarely
abandoned this requirement and opened the party-list system to groups on the basis
of ideology or cause rather than the sector they represent.
50
The court also struck down a politically unpopular peace agreement with
secessionist Muslim rebels in Mindanao since it granted a geographical area a
degree of political autonomy that overstepped constitutional boundaries.
51
The court’s sensitivity to popular opinion is further shown by its uncertain
rulings on the economic protectionism enshrined in the Constitution. Initially, it
struck down portions of the Mining Law that allowed foreign participation that
went beyond “technical or financial assistance” and would give foreigners a degree
of control in a domain reserved to Philippine nationals.^52 Within one year, the
court reversed itself and validated the Mining Lawin toto.^53 The court also upheld,
one vote shy of a majority, the ancestral domain rights recognized in the Indigen-
ous Peoples Rights Act.^54 Finally, the court revised long-standing doctrine on how
to determine how corporations may comply with the ownership requirements in
protected industries.^55
(^47) De Castrov.Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No 191002 (March 17 , 2010 ).
(^48) Veterans Federation Partyv.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 136781 (October 6 , 2000 ).
(^49) Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party, G.R. No 147589 (June 25 , 2003 ).
(^50) Atong Paglaumv.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 203766 (April 2 , 2013 ).
(^51) North Cotabatov.Government Peace Panel, G.R. No 183591 (October 14 , 2008 ).
(^52) La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Associationv.Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,
G.R. No 127882 (January 27 , 2004 ).
(^53) La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Associationv.Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,
G.R. No 127882 (December 1 , 2004 ).
(^54) Cruzv.Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No 135385 (December 6 ,
2000 ).
(^55) Gamboav.Teves, G.R. No 176579 (June 28 , 2011 ).