View full case

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO v. JBC

FACTS:

In the consolidated cases of Arturo M. De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) (G.R. No. 191002), Jaime N. Soriano vs. JBC (G.R. No. 191032), Philippine Constitution Association vs. JBC (G.R. No. 191057), and Estelito M. Mendoza's administrative matter (A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC), the controversy arose from the impending compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on May 17, 2010, and the legal implications surrounding the appointment of his successor. The mandatory retirement occurs just days after the May 10, 2010, presidential elections, engendering various legal questions: whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice amidst a prohibition in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution against presidential appointments two months before elections and up to the end of the term; and the relevance of the 90-day period for Supreme Court appointments stipulated in Section 4 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution.

Petitioners Arturo M. De Castro and John G. Peralta initiated special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus, compelling the JBC to submit a list of nominees for the Chief Justice position to the incumbent President. Jaime N. Soriano filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the JBC from conducting the nomination process. PHILCONSA also sought a mandamus to compel the JBC to submit the list, asserting that the prohibition did not apply to judicial appointments. Estelito M. Mendoza requested a ruling for guidance on whether the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII applies to judiciary appointments. Additionally, G.R. No. 191342, filed by IBP Governors Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr., and Roland B. Inting, aimed to enjoin the JBC from submitting a nominee list during the ban period.

Given prior jurisprudence, particularly "Valenzuela" regarding the prohibition of judicial appointments during the election ban, De Castro and other petitioners pointed out conflicting interpretations among legal experts, which warranted final adjudication to maintain stability in the judiciary. The JBC had started the nomination procedure, being urged by external requests, including one from Congressman Matias V. Defensor. Subsequently, the JBC began the nomination process, considering several candidates for the Chief Justice vacancy, but decided to seek the Court’s guidance on delivering the list amidst the appointment ban period.

ISSUES:

G.R. No. 191002

  1. Does the JBC have the power and authority to resolve the constitutional question of whether the incumbent President can appoint a Chief Justice during the election ban period?

  2. Does the incumbent President have the power and authority to appoint during the election ban the successor of Chief Justice Puno when he vacates the position of Chief Justice on his retirement on May 17, 2010?

G.R. No. 191032

  1. Is the power to appoint the Chief Justice vested in the Supreme Court en banc?

G.R. No. 191057

  1. Is the constitutional prohibition against appointment under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution applicable only to positions in the Executive Department?

  2. Assuming that the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution also applies to members of the Judiciary, may such appointments be excepted because they are impressed with public interest or are demanded by the exigencies of public service, thereby justifying these appointments during the period of prohibition?

  3. Does the JBC have the authority to decide whether or not to include and submit the names of nominees who manifested interest to be nominated for the position of Chief Justice on the understanding that his/her nomination will be submitted to the next President in view of the prohibition against presidential appointments from March 11, 2010 until June 30, 2010?

A. M. No. 10-2-5-SC

  1. Does Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution apply to appointments to positions in the Judiciary under Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution?

  2. May President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo make appointments to the Judiciary after March 10, 2010, including that for the position of Chief Justice after Chief Justice Puno retires on May 17, 2010?

G.R. No. 191149

  1. Does the JBC have the discretion to withhold the submission of the short list to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?

G.R. No. 191342

  1. Does the JBC have the authority to submit the list of nominees to the incumbent President without committing a grave violation of the Constitution and jurisprudence prohibiting the incumbent President from making midnight appointments two months immediately preceding the next presidential elections until the end of her term?

  2. Is any act performed by the JBC, including the vetting of the candidates for the position of Chief Justice, constitutionally invalid in view of the JBC's illegal composition allowing each member from the Senate and the House of Representatives to have one vote each?

RULING:

  1. The Court resolves that the prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments in the Judiciary, particularly to the appointment of a Chief Justice.

  2. Petitions for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 191002 and G.R. No. 191149, and the petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 191057 are dismissed for being premature. Petitions for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032 and G.R. No. 191342 are dismissed for lack of merit.

  3. The petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC is granted. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is ordered to:

    • Resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill the vacancy to be created by the compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010;

    • Prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice;

    • Submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or before May 17, 2010;

    • Continue its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and submit to the President the short list of nominees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Section 15, Article VII prohibition on appointments: This prohibition does not apply to appointments in the Judiciary. The provision specifically addresses appointments in the Executive Department.

  2. Section 4(1), Article VIII mandate: The Constitution requires the President to appoint a member to the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of a vacancy.

  3. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC): The JBC's principal function is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary, and it must submit a list of nominees to the President for every vacancy.

  4. Mandamus and Prohibition: Mandamus will not lie against the JBC as its actions are not discretionary. Prohibition cannot be issued against the JBC in this context because it is the President who has the appointing power.

  5. Judiciary independence: The appointment of permanent officials in the Judiciary ensures its independence and guarantees the separation of powers.

Reversed Doctrine: Valenzuela ruling, which incorrectly extended the Section 15, Article VII prohibition to judicial appointments, has been overturned.