The hottest issue these days is the issue on whether or not the President can appoint a Chief Justice since CJ Puno is to retire ten days after the May 10, 2010 national elections. People with legal know-how know how to deal with this issue, whereas those uneducated in this field would just make ignorant comments to the point that the comments sound stupid already.
Anyways, there are conflicting provisions of the Constitution on the matter. There is that one found on Article VII, Section 15,
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
There is one found on Article VIII, Section 4, to wit:
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
As to which of these provisions shall prevail, only the SC can make a pronouncement.
But on my own point of view, the President can make such appointment. She can because the prohibition on the first quoted provision does not include the judiciary. She can appoint the 15th justice to complete the 15-man Supreme Court. But as to the appointment of the CHIEF JUSTICE I think she can leave it up to the next president.
Contrary to the views of some others, mostly the critics, there is no vacuum in case Puno retires because among the 14 Justices left there will be one acting Chief Justice who does not need appointment. It's just like normal office routine that the most senior in appointment would have to come up temporarily.
Anyways, there isn't any actual case or controversy yet so these are all advance hits of the political opposition to politicize the Supreme Court.
