G.R. No. L-30001 June 23, 1970
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS and THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners, vs. ANG CHO KIO @ ANG MING HUY and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a petition filed by the Director of Prisons and the Executive Secretary against Ang Cho Kio and the Court of Appeals. The main decision was penned by Justice Zaldivar. The provided text is the concurring opinion of Justice Fernando, which agrees with the main decision but adds further commentary on a fundamental principle.

ISSUE

The core issue addressed in the concurring opinion is whether the judiciary, including the Court of Appeals, can assume the role of an adviser to the Executive branch of government.

RULING

Justice Fernando, in his concurring opinion, firmly rules that the judiciary cannot and must not play the role of an adviser to the Executive. This is based on the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers. He views the assumption of such an advisory role by the Court of Appeals as an unwarranted infringement on the executive domain and a deviation from the strictly judicial function. He argues that this would endanger the court’s duty to assure constitutional compliance and maintain the rule of law, as it would blur the limits of judicial authority. Furthermore, he warns that such actions could lead to a loss of judicial prestige and public confidence if the advice is ignored, and labels such advisory opinions as “ghosts that slay” with no proper place in the law. The opinion cites several authorities, including Justice Malcolm of the Philippine Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals, all of whom emphasized that courts cannot be charged with non-judicial, administrative, or advisory functions.