G.R. No. 224302 - Aguinaldo vs. Aquino III

The petition was filed by HON. PHILIP A. AGUINALDO, HON. REYNALDO A. ALHAMBRA, HON. DANILO S. CRUZ, HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, HON. SALVADOR V. TIMBANG, JR., and the INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), challenging actions taken by the Executive branch, notably by HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, and other respondents.
The central controversy involves the “clustering” of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for six simultaneous vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, as well as disputed amendments to the JBC’s rules and practices.

The petition sought relief through Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Prohibition, challenging both the clustering of nominees and the appointments made thereafter.
It also questioned the removal of incumbent Senior Associate Justices of the Supreme Court as consultants of the JBC and the deletion/non-inclusion of a specific rule (Rule 8, Section 1 of JBC-009) in the Revised Rules of the JBC.

On November 29, 2016, the Court En Banc rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
The Court declared the clustering of nominees by the JBC unconstitutional while validating the appointments of Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Geraldine Faith A. Econg, among others, to the Sandiganbayan.
The Court ordered the Clerk of Court En Banc to docket administrative matters relating to the amended rules (Item Nos. 2 and 3), and directed the JBC to file its comments on these matters within 30 days.

The JBC filed a Motion for Reconsideration (with Motion for the Inhibition of the Ponente) on December 27, 2016, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention on February 6, 2017.
In its Resolution dated February 21, 2017, the Court denied both these motions, except for granting the motion/prayer for intervention with respect to the rule changes.
Further motions were subsequently filed by the JBC in March 2017 (MR-Resolution and Supplement-MR-Resolution) challenging the Court’s prior rulings, particularly emphasizing alleged conflict of interest issues regarding JBC consultants receiving monthly allowances.

The ponente, despite having received a monthly allowance as a JBC consultant, rendered her decision based solely on an objective evaluation of the constitutional implications of clustering nominees.
The Court stressed that her decision was supported by the lack of consensus among JBC members regarding the validity of the clustering practice, thereby dismissing any notion of personal hostility or improper personal considerations.

The primary issue rested on whether the clustering of nominees compromised constitutional principles in the judicial appointment process.
Secondary issues involved the procedural changes effected by the JBC, including the deletion of certain rules and the exclusion of former Supreme Court justices from the JBC’s deliberations on sensitive matters.

Whether the clustering of nominees for the six vacant posts in the Sandiganbayan violated constitutional standards.
The nature and extent of any constitutional implications arising from such clustering.

Whether, despite the declared unconstitutionality of the clustering, the appointments of the Associate Justices (specifically, Michael Frederick L. Musngi, Geraldine Faith A. Econg, and the other newly appointed justices) remain valid.
The legal framework justifying the validation of these appointments even though procedural irregularities were noted.

Whether the deletion/non-inclusion of Rule 8, Section 1 from the Revised Rules of the JBC (JBC No. 2016-1) was proper.
Whether the removal of incumbent Senior Associate Justices as consultants of the JBC was procedurally and substantively justified.

Whether the ponente’s receipt of a monthly allowance from the JBC created a conflict of interest in her decision.
Whether her participation in voting on matters involving JBC nominations compromised the impartiality required in cases with grave constitutional implications.