G.R. No. L-11315; March 22, 1916
DIONISIO CHANCO, petitioner, vs. CARLOS IMPERIAL, respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner Dionisio Chanco was duly appointed as Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Eighth Judicial District on July 1, 1914. On October 9, 1915, he reached the age of sixty-five. Subsequently, on October 19, 1915, respondent Carlos Imperial was appointed to the same judicial office. Chanco filed an action for quo warranto, asserting that he had not resigned nor been removed, and that his appointment was valid. Imperial defended his appointment by invoking Section 7 of Act No. 2347 , which provides that no person shall hold the office of Judge of the Court of First Instance after reaching the age of sixty-five, thereby causing the office to become vacant ipso facto. Chanco demurred to the answer, arguing that Section 7 of Act No. 2347 is void for being incompatible with the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (the Philippine Organic Act) and Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission.

ISSUE:
Whether Section 7 of Act No. 2347 , which sets a mandatory retirement age of sixty-five for judges of the Court of First Instance, is invalid for being repugnant to the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.

RULING:
No, Section 7 of Act No. 2347 is valid. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Philippine Legislature to enact the retirement provision.

1. Authority of the Philippine Legislature: The Court recognized that the Philippine Legislature possesses, within its sphere, legislative powers analogous to those of Congress, provided its acts are not annulled by Congress, do not violate an Act of Congress, or intrude upon a field already occupied by congressional legislation.

2. Congress Did Not Preempt the Field of Judicial Qualifications: The petitioner’s argument was that Congress, in Section 9 of the Organic Act of 1902 (which provided for the appointment of judges by the Governor-General with the consent of the Philippine Commission), had impliedly adopted the qualifications for judges then existing under Act No. 136 , thereby fixing them permanently. The Court rejected this. It found no basis to conclude that Congress intended to fix judicial qualifications. The Act of 1902 was silent on qualifications, dealing only with the method of appointment. The power of appointment and the prescription of qualifications for office are separate subjects. By legislating on one (appointment), Congress did not thereby prohibit the Philippine Legislature from legislating on the other (qualifications, including retirement age).

3. Effect of the Law: Consequently, upon reaching the age of sixty-five, petitioner Chanco ceased to be a judge by direct operation of Section 7 of Act No. 2347 . The office became vacant, and the subsequent appointment of respondent Imperial was valid. The demurrer to the answer was overruled.

The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the ancillary claim regarding Act No. 136 , as its validity was contingent on the main argument regarding the Organic Act.