De Castro vs JBC

Fact:
Petitioner De Castro filed a writ of mandamus to compel JBC to submit the list of at least three
nominees for the position of the next Chief Justice to the President
The case is about the impending mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Renato Puno on May 17,
2010 days after the presidential election on May 10, 2010. Issue arrises on whether the incumbent
President can appoint the next CJ in relation to Sec 4 Art VIII of the Constitution which provides
that the any vacancy in the SC shall be filled within 90 days from the occurrence considering the
appointment prohibition of the President two months before the presidential election as stated in
Sec 15 Art VII of the Constitution. The Judicial Bar Council initiated the application of the nominees
but deferred when it was about the time to submit the list of nominees to the President in lieu of the
conflicting provisions regarding the appointment. Thus, JBC rests the view on the final decision of
the court.
Issue:
Locus Standi and Ripeness for Judicial Determination
WON the President can elect the next Chief Justice
Held:
On the locus stand of the petitioners, the court waived the requirement of locus stand for the issue
has transcendental importance. On the other hand, the court considered that the issue beforehand
is ripe for actual judicial determination since JBC had already initiated the proceedings for the
selection of nominees and had already prepared the short list for submission to the President.
As for the authority of the President, the Court rejected the precedent of the Valenzuela vs Vallarta
case as it did not rest its decision on the actual deliberation of the Constitutional Commission and
confirmation made by Senior Associate Justice Justice Regalado. Rather, it relied on the statutory
construction of the provision that Sec 15 Art VII extends on the Judiciary appointment of the
president. Judicial precedents are not always strictly and rigidly followed by the Philippine court.
They may be used as guide and be followed when its reasoning and justification are relevant.
The court held that the Constitutional Commission had been meticulous in the drafting, styling, and
arranging the Constitution, As such, the arrangement were not arbitrarily done by the framers but
made to reflect their intention. Had the intention of the framers to extend the prohibition on Sec, 15
VIII, they would have explicitly did so. The prohibition is only confined in the Executive department
because the establishment of JBC ensured that no midnight appointment or vote buying will be
made which was the ultimate purpose on the prohibition on Sec 4 Art. 1.
In addition, there was no sufficient ground to grant mandamus to JBC as it is still premature. JBC
has until May 27, 2010 to submit the list which is before the start of the Presidents 90-day
mandatory period to appoint.
Ruling: Petition Dismissed.