04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxxx (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of x x x presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. [87] G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 6. [88] 118 Phil. 1127 (1963). [89] 9 SCRA 204 (1963). In Merrera, the Court observed that the following facts argue against the application of the Aytona ruling to the appointment involved: the appointment was extended on November 6, 1961 (or weeks before the elections); the necessity to fill the vacancy existed; the appointee was qualified to the position, as shown by the favorable recommendation of the official concerned and; he entered upon the exercise of his official functions days before the “scramble” in Malacanan on December 29, 1961. [90] 121 Phil. 742 (1965). In Morales, the Court considered the appointment made on November 6, 1961 (or weeks before the elections) as sufficient to indicate “deliberate and careful action” even though the appointment was released only on December 27, 1961 and the appointee assumed office only on December 28, 1961. [91] 109 Phil. 494 (1964), citing its March 30, 1962 resolution in Aytona v. Castillo. [92] 119 Phil. 729 (1964). [93] In Quimsing v. Tajanglangit, the Court said: In the various cases decided by this Court after the Aytona v. Castillo case, the matter of the validity of appointments made after December 13, 1961 by former Administrative Order No. 2 (which was never upheld by this Court) but, on the basis of the nature, character and merit of the individual appointments and the particular circumstances surrounding the same. In other words, this Court did not declare that all the ad-interim appointments made [were void] by the mere fact that the same were extended after [the date fixed by the presidential issuance] nor that they automatically come within the category of the "midnight" appointments, the validity of which were doubted and which gave rise to the ruling in the Aytona case[.] [94] In Tajanglangit the appointment was extended several days before the new President took his oath and assumed office. [95] The Election Code of 1971. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 66/75