Case Digest (G.R. No. 224302)
Facts:
Hon. Philip A. Aguinaldo, et al. v. His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were six judges (Aguinaldo, Alhambra, Danilo S. Cruz, Pozon, Timbang) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) who challenged the appointment by then‑President Benigno S. Aquino III of six new Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan, particularly assailing the appointments of respondents Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg as having been made in disregard of shortlists submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).Republic Act No. 10660 (April 16, 2015) created two additional Sandiganbayan divisions, producing six simultaneous vacancies. The JBC conducted screening and on October 26, 2015 submitted six separate shortlists (one purportedly for each vacancy, labeled 16th–21st Associate Justices) totalling 37 nominees. On January 20, 2016 President Aquino signed six appointment papers and on January 25, 2016 the appointees received their commissions and took their oaths. Notably, respondents Musngi and Econg had been clustered together in the JBC shortlist for the 21st vacancy but were appointed to other numbered vacancies (Musngi to the 16th; Econg to the 18th).
Petitioners filed a petition invoking Quo Warranto (Rule 66) and Certiorari and Prohibition (Rule 65), contending that (a) the President violated Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution by appointing persons outside the specific shortlists for particular vacancies; (b) the President’s appointments disrupted the JBC’s clustering and altered seniority; and (c) Musngi’s and Econg’s appointments must be declared void. They sought ouster of the two justices and other reliefs.
The Office of the Solicitor General (on behalf of the Office of the President) and the appointees opposed the petition. The OSG argued (inter alia) that nominees were properly considered from the entire pool of 37 (so constitutional minimum of three per vacancy was met), that the JBC’s clustering was not binding, that private quo warranto was improper because nominees had only an expectant right, and that the President has discretion to determine seniority by dates/orders of commissions. The JBC belatedly moved to intervene; the Court took cognizance of certain new JBC internal rules as administrative matters....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to invoke quo warranto and/or certiorari to challenge the appointments?
- Was the petition for certiorari filed within the 60‑day reglementary period, and if not, should the Court relax the rule?
- Did President Aquino violate Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution or commit grave abuse of discretion by appointing Associate Justices without following the JBC’s clustering of nominees by specific numbered vacancies?
- Is the JBC’s practice of clustering nominees into separate shortlists for simultaneous v...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)