@bogadomo.com

Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Chairman of the 2009 Bar Examinations announced today that a total of 1,451 bar examinees out of 5,903 passed the 2009 Bar Examinations held last September. This represents a 24.58 percent passing rate. The passing percentage for this year was higher compared to last year’s 20.58 percent or 1,310 out of 6,364. This year’s topnotcher is Reinier Paul R. Yebra from the San Beda College of Law who obtained a grade of 84.80%. Check out the List of Successful Examinees of the 2009 Bar Examinations here!

In a 9-1-3 decision, the Supreme Court declared yesterday that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo can appoint the next Chief Justice upon retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17, 2010.

The Decision stemmed from the question on whether an incumbent President can appoint Chief Justice Puno’s successor, considering that Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department) of the Constitution prohibits the President from making appointments within two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of her term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

In its Decision, the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin held that the prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not extend to appointments in the Judiciary.

The Court ratiocinated that “Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial Department and defines the duties and qualifications of Members of the Supreme Court, among others. Section 4(1) and Section 9 of this Article are the provisions specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the submission of a list of at least three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article mandates the President to fill the vacancy within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.

Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.”

 Click on this link to read a full copy of the Decision.

In a 10-5 vote, the Supreme Court reversed its Decision rendered in the case of Quinto vs. Comelec last December 2009 and declared that appointed officials, including members of the judiciary and the Comelec itself, who have filed their certificate of candidacy for the May 10 elections are already deemed resigned. In the Resolution dated 22 February 2010, the Court said that its December 2009 Decision failed to consider the threat to government “posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a ‘powerful political machine’ that has amassed ‘the scattered powers of government workers’ so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an ‘unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.” The Court added that “in the case at bar, the probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute.”

The Resolution was penned by no less that Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. Concurring with the Chief Justice were Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose P. Perez, and Jose C. Mendoza. Dissenting were Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (the ponente in the original Decision), Renato C. Corona, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Lucas P. Bersamin.

Read a copy of the Resolution here.

Children born out of wedlock to parents who were not allowed by law to marry for being minors are now qualified for legitimation. This has been made possible by Republic Act No. 9858, which has amended Article 177 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Previously, Article 177 stated that only children born out of wedlock to parents who were not disqualified from getting married at the time of conception could be legitimized. Effectively, this legal irony excluded children whose parents were barred from getting married because they were underage. With the new law, legitimation would automatically take place upon marriage of the parents. Moreover, couples who had children when they were below the marrying age would not need to go through the process of having to adopt their own offspring just so their kids could enjoy the rights of legitimate children.