The showdown between the chief executive and the chief justice
The “midnight appointment”
The story of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment actually begins with the
questionable circumstances of his appointment a few days before the oath-taking of
then President-Elect Aquino.
The post-Marcos charter constitutionalized the long-standing ban on “midnight
appointments,” so that an outgoing president may not cramp his successor by
rewarding his loyalists with fixed-term posts.^100 The ban takes effect two months
before election day and until the president’s term expires.^101 The Supreme Court
had already applied this ban to judicial appointments.
102
As fate would have it, the outgoing chief justice would reach his compulsory age
of retirement within precisely that period; that is, after the new president had been
elected but before he was sworn into office. President Arroyo nonetheless insisted
on appointing the successor. The court upheld the president, reversed itself, and
held that the ban must yield to the president’s constitutional duty to fill all judicial
vacancies within ninety days of the date of the vacancy.
103
The court said that the
mischief sought to be avoided by the ban on midnight appointments, such as
“vote buying” and “influenc[ing] the results of the elections,” is not present in
the judiciary anyway because they are subject to “unhurried and deliberate prior
process[es]” before the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutional body that vets all
judges’ appointments.^104
Accordingly, outgoing president Arroyo appointed Renato C. Corona, then the
second-most-senior member of the court and seen as her loyal follower, a few days
before Aquino’s oath-taking. Aquino then defied tradition by taking his oath not
before the chief justice but before another Supreme Court justice.
Striking down the Truth Commission
Aquino’s first official act was to create a Truth Commission to inquire into
corruption committed under his predecessor.^105 However, the Supreme Court
struck it down on equal-protection grounds, saying it had “singl[ed] out the previous
[Arroyo’s] administration” when it should have covered all past administrations.^106
Significantly, this was the second equal-protection ruling in this period. The
court held in another case that appointed officials – just like elected officials – are
(^100) Aytonav.Castillo, G.R. No L- 19313 (January 19 , 1962 ). (^101) Const. Art.vii§ 15.
(^102) In re Appointments Dated March 30 , 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido
B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62 , Bago City and of Branch 24 ,
Cabanatuan City, respectively(Valenzuela), A.M. No 98 - 5 - 01 -SC (November 9 , 1998 ).
(^103) Const. Art.viii§ 9.
(^104) De Castrov.Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No 191002 (March 17 , 2010 ).
(^105) Executive Order No 1 (Establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 ) (July 30 ,
2010 ).
(^106) Biraogov.Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 , G.R. No 192935 (December 7 , 2010 ).