#43 - Digest by: Suero, Stefi Monika

De Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council (JBC)

G.R.No. 191002, 191032, 191057, 191149, March 17, 2010 Bersamin
AM No. 10-2-5-SC
Petitioners Respondents
John G. Peralta et al Judicial Bar Council and President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
RECIT-READY:
Due to the upcoming retirement of Chief Justice Puno seven days after the presidential election, the JBC
initiated deliberations for the list of nominees to be submitted to the President in accordance with the
Constitutional provision (Art. VIII, Sec. 9) that the position of Chief Justice must be filled 90 days from
vacancy. However, petitioners raised that this constitutional provision is in conflict with Art. VII and Sec.
15 under the Constitution which could result to midnight appointment by the incumbent president. The
issue at hand is whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice. The court ruled that
she can because the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a
vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments in the Judiciary. The Constitution specifically
separates into different articles the three branches of government, with each stating its own powers. Had the
framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of
Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. That such specification was not done
only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two
months before the next presidential elections and end up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s
term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Several petitioners filed for special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus, petition for prohibition to the
Supreme Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
These cases trace their genesis to the controversy that has arisen from the forthcoming compulsory
retirement of Chief Justice Puno seven days after the presidential election. Under Section 4(1), in relation
to Section 9, Article VIII, that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.” In
line with this, JBC commenced deliberations for nominations of Chief Justice. The JBC immediately
nominated the five most senior of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court (Carpio, Corona, Carpio-
Morales, Velaso and Nachura, though Velaso and Nachura declined.) Upon deliberation, the JBC
announced the nominees via The Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star.
However, petitioners raised the conflicting provisions Art. VII, Sec. 15 and Art. VIII, Sec. 9 under the
Constitution.
ISSUES: Ruling
1. Whether the incumbent President can appoint the next Chief Justice? Yes

RULING/RATIONALE:
Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme
Court or to other appointments in the Judiciary.
The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the framers devoted time to
meticulously drafting, styling and arranging the Constitution. Such meticulousness indicates that the
organization and arrangement of the provisions of the Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done
by the framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and manifest their vision of what the
Constitution should contain.
The Constitution specifically separates into different articles the three branches of government, with each
stating its own powers. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article
VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. That such
specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President
making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and end up to the end of the
President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
The exchanges during deliberations of the Constitutional Commission further show that the filling of a
vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90-day period was a true mandate for the President. (Mr.
Concepcion: “That is borne out of the fact that in the past 30 years, seldom has the Court had a complete
complement.”
1.

LAWS, STATUTES, CODES INVOLVED:

 Under the constitution the JBC does have the power to create a list of at least three nominees when
a vacancy in the SC or lower courts occur, the president pick from their list of nominees to fill
such vacancy. (Article Sec. 9 of the Constitution)
 Art. VII, Sec. 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end
of his term, a president or acting president shall not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.
 Art. VIII, Sec. 9. The members of the supreme court and judges of the lower courts shall be
appointed by the president from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the judicial and bar
council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the president shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the
submission of the list.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Dismisses the 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 for being premature;
2. Dismisses the petitions for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032 and G.R. No. 191342 for lack of merit; and
3. Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC and, accordingly, directs the Judicial and Bar Council:
(a) 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;
(b) To prepare the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice;
(c) To submit to the incumbent President the short list of nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or
before May 17, 2010; and
(d) To 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.
SEPARATE RULINGS:
 Carpio-Morales (Dissent): The mere sequencing og Sec 14, 15, and 16 does not signify functional
structuring. The prohibition written in Sec 14 and 16 does not apply tp Sec 15 just because it is
sandwiched by the two. When the power of judicial appointment was given to the president it was
counterbalanced by the election ban, allowing the judiciary to be free of the pressures of the
political climate in election season. Witholding this interplay of powers is not what the
constitution aims for.
 Nachura: There is no justiciable issue given that there was no formal list yet. The JBC was yet to
screen thir prospective list, there were no interviews, nor confirmation that the people they
included in their initial list were to be in the list to be sent to the president. If anything the JBC
were witholding sending the list to Arroyo, as Justices Morales and Carpio-Morales deferred their
nomination unless the list is sent to the winner of the 2010 presidential elections. The decision of
the court to direct the JBC to finish the list and send it to Arroyo was wrong, because there was no
issue to begin with. Vote to dismiss.
 Brion: Agrees that the president can appoint during the ban period, however does not agree that
this power extends to the whole judiciary. The JBC is under the supervision of the SC, but is fully
independent in doing its primary tasks.
CASES CITED IN CASE
N/A