Topic: The Judicial Bar and Council

Court: SC En Banc
Title: Jardeleza v Sereno
Case No: G.R. No. 213181
Ponente: Mendoza

Facts:
This is an action for Certiorari and Mandamus for Jardeleza to be included in the short list of
JBC nominees. Due to the compulsory retirement of Assoc. Justice Roberto Abad, JBC
opened applications to fill up the vacancy. Jardeleza (incumber Solicitor General) was
nominated, and he accepted, then went on for public interview on May 29. On June 16 & 17,
he got calls from JBC member Justice Aurora Lagman who told him that CJ and ex officio
chairperson Sereno was invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC 009 (which states that a JBC has to
unanimously vote yes to a candidate’s integrity) against Jardeleza, and told him to be attend
a hearing on June 30. Jardeleza then asked for at least 5 working days written notice of any
hearing about it, with the charges he’s facing, sworn documents related to it, and sworn
statements of complainants. He also asked to cross-examine his oppositors in public; asked
to re-schedule the hearing on June 30; and asked that CJ be disallowed from voting on June
30. On June 30 (sans Jardeleza) hearing, CJ Sereno questioned Jardeleza’s ability to
discharge his duties as shown in a confidential legal memorandum about how he handled an
international arbitration case for the government. Jardeleza was then informed by Secretary
of Justice Leila De Lima that Associate Justice Carpio disclosed confidential info to JBC
questioning his integrity. CJ Sereno asked Jardeleza if he’d want to defend himself, and he
said yes but to defer the meeting. But, JBC proceeded to vote on the short list that day, with
4 nominees sans Jardeleza. In a Phil. Daily Inquirer article, it said that there were 5
nominees who made it to the short list but 1 couldn’t be included because of the invocation
of Rule 10. Exec. Secretary Ochoa raised possible unconstitutionality of Rule 10 as it impairs
JBC’s collegial character -- a vote of 1 would veto the votes of all others.

Issue:
1. W/N Supreme Court can take cognizance of this case?
2. W/N Section 2 Rule 10 of JBC 009 can be invoked against Jardeleza?
3. W/N the JBC proceedings should afford due process when opposition to an
application is filed.

Holding:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby declared that Solicitor

General Francis I-I. Jardeleza is deemed INCLUDED in the shortlist submitted to the
President for consideration as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court vice Associate
Justice Roberto A. Abad.

The Court further DIRECTS that the Judicial and Bar Council REVIEW, and ADOPT, rules
relevant to the observance of due process in its proceedings, particularly JBC-009 and JBC-
010, subject to the approval of the Court.
Rationale:
1. SC has supervisory powers over JBC (Sec 8 Art 8 of Constitution). This gives SC
power to ensure JBC follows laws and rules. SC doesn’t have power to lay down the
rules or modify them, but if rules aren’t observed, they can make JBC redo their
work. Mandamus can’t issue here, though, since it can only issue for ministerial
duties, not discretionary ones. However, certiorari can issue here since it’s the proper
remedy for any branch of government who exercised grave abuse of discretion, even
if that branch or instrumentality doesn’t exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions.
2. No. Integrity is closely related to honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and
fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards. Proof of this can be gained thru
certifications from reputable government officials, NGOs, clearances from courts,
NBI, and police among others. JBC an even conduct a discreet background check
and receive feedback from the public. Integrity is of utmost importance, and it
required by the constitution as a requirement for judiciary members so unanimity rule
can be upheld (only insofar as when moral character of a person is of issue).
However, when CJ Sereno invoked Rule 10, she raised Jardeleza’s way of handling
a case. This isn’t a question of morality, but of legal strategy, which has no bearing to
his moral choices. When accusations of extra-marital affair and of insider trading
were brought up later on, Rule 10 can’t be applied as it wasn’t the original ground for
the invocation. However, if they were raised earlier on as the original grounds, then
they would have constituted moral issues.
3. Yes. Right to due process is available and demandable. So conferring due process to
applicants is not discretionary to JBC. Observance of due process doesn’t negate
fulfillment of JBC’s duty to recommend. They aren’t expected to strictly apply the
rules of evidence, but attack on the person of applicant necessitates his right to
explain himself. Issuance of JBC 010 (Rule to Further Promote Public Awareness of
and Accessibility to the Proceedings of the JBC) gives right to applicant to be
informed and to be heard. Though it doesn’t state a process to entail a trial-type
hearing, it gives applicant the chance to answer the accusations against him. From
this, Court resolved that the application of the unanimity rule on integrity
deprived Jardeleza due process.

Analysis:
If CJ Sereno raised ex-marital affair and insider trading as grounds to invoke Rule 10, we
would have been able to hear his defense. Since this wasn’t tackled, we don’t know if we
have an Associate Justice now with low integrity or moral standards.