Supreme Court Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. retires today after serving the Judiciary for 20 years and sets a record in the history of the SC by disposing of all judicial and administrative cases assigned to him.
Tomorrow, Velasco turns 70, the mandatory retirement age for members of the Judiciary.
This afternoon, SC justices will honor Velasco in a retirement ceremony at the SC on Padre Faura St. in Ermita, Manila, after which a retirement dinner will be held at the historic landmark Manila Hotel.
Velasco finished his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science degree at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City where he also received his Bachelor of Laws degree at age 22 and ranked eighth in his class. He placed sixth in the 1971 Bar examinations with a weighted average rating of 89.85 per cent.
Velasco was the chairperson of the 2016 Bar examinations which produced the highest passing percentage of 75 percent. Records showed that out of 6,344 Bar examinees, 3,747 passed the tests and became lawyers.
At the SC, he wrote more than 1,000 decisions, opinions, and resolutions, signed or unsigned.
Among his landmark decision are Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, Coconut Producers Federation vs. Republic, and Metro Manila Development Authority vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay.
In the Hacienda Luisita case, more than 4,330 hectares of the vast estate were distributed to 6,296 farm worker-beneficiaries. With each farmer given around 6,600 square meters to till, his lifelong dream of owning a piece of land was finally fulfilled and was finally emancipated from the “bondage of the soil.”
In the Cocofed case, more than R70 billion were remitted to the coffers of the national treasury for the benefit of the coconut farmers and the development of the coconut industry. Congress is now in the process of enacting a law that will lay down the program for the use of the coco levy funds.
Velasco’s decision in the MMDA case introduced for the first time in the Philippine legal system the “writ of continuing mandamus” or “continuing court interference” scheme to ensure that the dispositive directives set forth in the decision are implemented. (Rey G. Panaligan)
